Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darla (dog)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems as though with the nomination being withdrawn, the new sources being found, and the additional keep !votes following relisting, it's safe to close this discussion. (non-admin closure) Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Darla (dog)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Darla the dog has received insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article. Only claim to notability is having starred in a few high profile films, and Notability is not inherited. Sources are questionable; consisting only of a blog, a Facebook page, and an apparently self-published source. The only other substantive source found in a WP:BEFORE was this Screenrant article, which appears to primarily regurgitate the information in the subject's Wikipedia article. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, Film, Television, Visual arts,  and Animal. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello . Screenrant is a reliable source per this discussion Have added the reference mentioned above to the article. [Edit: Plus see Atsme's new findings below]. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all kinds of articles about any old random dog found, nothing for this one. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete agree, notability is not inherited or determined by cuteness. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? BD2412  T 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, many canine actors have pages on Wikipedia, nothing unusual about it. This dog is well known to the point of its role and name as Precious in Silence of the Lambs being familiar to millions of film "buffs" and her page actually mentions her status as "a cult icon" (for more sources see this and other search engine links). The rational for this move that an actor's "notability is not inherited" from their starring roles in films would remove thousands of actor's pages from Wikipedia! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - we know that notability is not temporary. There are plenty of sources online, so instead of wasting everyone's time with this AfD, I'm of the mind that the delete editors could have been far more productive had they engaged in WP:BEFORE. Here are a few that I found rather quickly: People Magazine, Gizmodo, and CBS News. Those are 3 major mainstream sources, hardly insufficient coverage.  Atsme 💬 📧 14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding additional list of sources that I quickly found today alone:


 * I still do not believe that these sources show sufficient notability for a standalone article. These are all relatively trivial mentions in lists of dogs, which do not address the subject directly and in detail, thus failing WP:SIGCOV. While these sources do seem reliable, I feel that they justify a merge to List of animal actors (or a similar page) and not a standalone article.
 * As for the argument that many dog actors have pages on Wikipedia, and that many actors would be removed if we were to apply and accept my nomination argument elsewhere- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It seems likely to me that many of those articles, like many articles on Wikipedia that have gone overlooked or unnoticed, should indeed be deleted, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  17:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Nomination has been withdrawn. Please evaluate the new sources found since the AFD opened. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are raising my concerns because you still do not (and you bolded "not" SMirC-what.svg) believe these sources are sufficient. I looked at your AfD stats, and they confirm my concerns in light of the fact that you are still on the wrong side of this argument. I've been finding sources quite easily, in addition to the ones I've already mentioned, and that are cited in the article. Per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.  Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention,  but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.   Also per WP:N - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. It easily passes significant coverage, and it is detailed coverage. Five sources are already cited in the article, and I just provided another 4 or 5.
 * 1) People Magazine published a full article titled There's Nothing Scary About the 'Precious' and Talented Canine Star of 'Clarice' : 'She's Great';
 * 2) Filmsite.org movie review - uses the scene with the dog in detail;
 * 3) Vox demonstrates the cultural impact: "The sheer cultural dominance of Silence of the Lambs over the years is hard to quantify; .... — from the fava beans to the lotion in the basket to Precious the dog."
 * 4) Vulture, uses the name "Darla", shows a clip of her performance, but the author used "the dog" in lieu of "Darla" which may be why the search did not show much;
 * As I mentioned earlier, before you nom an article for AfD, you need to do a much better WP:BEFORE. I am trying to help you here because it appears that you are misunderstanding WP:GNG and WP:N, or maybe the issue involves locating sources, I don't know. This little dog was not a one time wonder. She acted in several highly notable films, one of which "grossed over $270 million worldwide, and won the "Big Five" at the Academy Awards. She was also credited as the "Pink Poodle" in Tim Burton's Pee-wee's Big Adventure in 1985. Keep in mind that a dog's average lifespan is about 12 years, so let's use some common sense here. The dog skyrocketed to fame, had a prominent role in major motion pictures, such as Silence of the Lambs which was seen by millions of people. Darla became a cult in her little lifetime with her own FB fan page, and is still being talked about today. The article easily passes WP:10YT. The cited sources themselves tell us the dog is notable - you just have to read them. That article could even be expanded because there are plenty of sources to cite.  Atsme 💬 📧 22:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any of those sources, because search engines didn't yield any of them. That's not my fault. I guess Darla is in fact notable, and Google didn't give any useful results about her when I searched for "darla dog," and I didn't know about her fame because all of these films came out around a decade before I was born at the latest. I apologize.
 * I would now close this discussion, had two other editors not voted "delete," but since it's not eligible for me to withdraw it I'll be leaving it to the AfD process. I'll be absconding from this discussion with no further comment. Sorry again for wasting everyone's time. silvia  (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  <small style="font-size:75%;">(inquire within)  00:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah,, that's cool. You opened this nom in good faith, and that's the bottom line at Wikipedia - assume good faith. What it did was put some attention on the page and improve it, so nothing wrong with the result. Thanks for withdrawing it, this is rarer than it should be, some nomming editors hold on to the leaky raft, which are also good faith actions. What you bring up is a concern at Wikipedia, that as decades go by some of these important pages won't have people defending them (one reason I should campaign for a ceiling on deletion noms per page, three even seem too many to me if spaced out over a few years) because they aren't known. Atsme did a great job here, I'm glad the page was saved. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per those above. A dog actor with roles more notable than some human actors, and sufficient coverage in sources to merit inclusion. BD2412  T 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per above. Sufficient sources and notability. Skynxnex (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Gollum-endorsed keep my Precious. The sources are there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.