Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

George (dog)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm not sure if this dog is notable... Tim 1357  talk  03:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is not just some notability for one thing news type story. The dog was awarded a PDSA Gold Medal, a bronze medal from the New Zealand Society for the Protection of Animals, was honored by a Vietnam war veteran, and received his own statue. Joe Chill (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From talk page - "what the f is this dog doing on wikipedia...?" and "agreed...this is not what i think wikipedia should be about. since i don't see an article for every fireman, policeman, etc that's ever saved a person's life." Not every fireman, policeman, etc. are awarded two medals and a statue. Even if every fireman, policeman, etc. did receive that, this is a dog. Really impressive for a dog. Joe Chill (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: One-event local news story does not establish notability. Good perhaps for Dogopedia, not for Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that the dog is non-notable just because it is one event and published in local news without saying how everything else still makes the dog non-notable? There is more to consider than that. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:ANYBIO which can refer to animals states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Joe Chill (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that a medal created specifically for awarding to dogs by a veterinary organization is "well-known or significant." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, multiple reliable sources comparing the award to George's Cross makes it well known and significant. It's not what you think, it's what the authors of reliable sources think. It's not just intended for dogs according to the article, it just so happens that only dogs were awarded it so far. Joe Chill (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the George Cross...for animals. Awarded by a private animal advocacy organization. They cannot seriously be considered of equivalent importance. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're using your personal beliefs again. Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How about I phrase it this way - do you think that this is a well known and significant award for animals. Joe Chill (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's significant when an animal receives an award designed for people, so no, not really; perhaps detail about individual cases can be covered in the article on the PDSA Medal. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Then there really is no reason for me to discuss this with you. Animals can do notable things that are written about in the media. A statue of him was made along with a ceremony held by the governor of a country. Five kids could have been seriously injured or dead if it wasn't for this dog. Joe Chill (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge, delete, keep. I'll just stop arguing my point because I already made it. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete. Sorry, WP:BIO1E applies here. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A quote from that page: "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Is this of sufficient importance? Maybe some don't think so (how subjective), but the award has its own article with valid refs that do describe it as the equivalent of the George Cross, so one would have to make a good case for its lack of importance. Anna  talk 18:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sad, though... Roodog2k (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The Daily Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, and Fox News aren't enough? Not sure how "Wikipedia is not a memorial" is valid deletion rationale when there's nothing gushing or unsourced in the article. Anna  talk 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple awards, multiple reliable coverage, certainly not a memorial, a proper article, no reason to delete at all. Leave your personal beliefs at the door guys, PDSA Gold Medal is significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep...but only because a statue was erected in memory of this dog. I wouldn't consider George relevant to more than one event, otherwise, but now he's the reason for a local landmark.  This deletion discussion is interesting in particular because of the recent AfD debate over Fjordman, in which the subject's notability was in question because it was mostly the result of one recent event.  This dog is only notable for one event as well. He did earn an award for that event, yes, but there was still only one primary event.  Also, he was a dog. Several Times (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep... as original author of this article. WP:ANYBIO combined with sufficient sourcing shows that George is indeed notable enough to have his own article. Miyagawa   (talk)  19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Unusual topic, but notable.  Would probably suffer from NOTNEWS issues, except for the numerous awards. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: He saved 5 kids. 5 people that would not be alive today. He deserves any and all recognition, and to 'go down in history.' -gijen3 04:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.116.67 (talk)
 * Seriously? You think that 2 pitbulls would have killed 5 kids?? Back to reality... DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: I came to wikipedia to find this exact example of small dog behavior versus larger dogs; one that would include verifiable sources. This delivered the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms18 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: National newspapers and news sites (including the the BBC) thought this was notable enough to report, so I can't see any reason it should be removed from Wikipedia. Stephenb (Talk) 09:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everything published by BBC News is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Case in point.. Several Times (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the "Magazine" section of the BBC website. Stephenb linked to the News section.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Aw, now I have to spend my afternoon scouring the BBC for a non-notable news piece (just kidding, I get the point.) It's a bit of a blanket statement to claim that everything reported by major news sources is Wikipedia-worthy.  WP:NRVE notes that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest".  Every dog has his day, but not every dog needs his own article. Several Times (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Every dog has his day, but not every dog needs his own article." So every dog wins two awards, receives a ceremony, and gets a statue? That equals "significant independent coverage or recognition". He received a lot of coverage and he received recognition for saving five kids from two pit bulls. I know that I said that I would stop replying, but I find that comment very odd. Joe Chill (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Never said it was, Several Times. Just pointing out yet another source, of many. Stephenb (Talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this dog is so non-notable, I dare you to list all of the similar articles in Category:Individual dogs and see what happens. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pretty much agree with all the keep comments above. The animal clearly received a top, rarely given award for bravery and quite a bit of reputable media coverage.-Kiwipat (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * keep - seems to make the grade, see also several articles linked off Dickin Medal, which is the military equivalent - SimonLyall (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Received media attention worldwide, was honoured with a top award, was immortalised in a statue... not sure how all that fails notability criteria. BIO1E may seem to apply to some, but it's worth remembering that that guideline is primarily for humans, who are far more likely to either be newsworthy or non-newsworthy for an entire lifetime and make such judgements more appropriate. If you're going to nominate this, may I suggest that you try something like Greyfriars Bobby next? BTW, still chuckling at the idea of a dog making it onto Fox News. Don't dogs hav their own news service? Grutness...wha?  07:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.