Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldador


 * 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   delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Goldador

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Effectively unsourced article on a possibly common, but nonetheless non-notable dog crossbreed. Article states outright that "the Goldador has not yet gained the popularity of some other so-called 'designer' dogs" and "there are no breed clubs or any efforts to create a breed standard for the Goldador". Zetawoof (&zeta;) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Effectively unsourced, no indication of notability (or recognition, despite the assertion in the lede) in reliable sources for yet another in an infinite series of cross-breed dogs. My wife and I used to have a golden-lab cross; it never occurred to us to call him a "Goldador."  Acroterion   (talk)   03:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Goldador is a widely recognized hybrid dog. This mix is highly sought after in the Midwest as a bird dog for upland and wetlands hunting. Additionally, this common mix is highly used for service dogs in both the private sector and public services nation wide. If this article is to be deleted, then all other articles on hybrid dogs need deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.150.74 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)  — 174.20.150.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Seems to be a recognised cross with adequate sources. Warden (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This particular hybrid is as valid as Labradoodles, Puggles or any other designer dog. The article has several credible sources to confirm this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNdude11 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once again, extensively sourced != reliably sourced. This is not about the validity of the hybrid; I get that it's a common cross in the service-dog world. The only reliable source mentioning it in more than cursory detail is the "Dogs All-in-One" book. I've pruned those that are self-published or untrustworthy. – anna  12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * KeepIt appears that those who wish to delete this page voice opinion in regards to the validity of this article. They say that general websites to dog breeds are "untrustworthy."  Additionally, so called editors find articles by recognized news groups and non-profit organization groups as "untrustworthy."  In all honesty, I don't think that our expert editors truthfully have sought out and studied whether or not said articles are "untrustworthy."  In contrast, those who wish to keep the page have found facts through worthy articles and sources.  The fact is, Goldadors are a recognized hybrid though they are not registered by the AKC for that matter.  Therefore, the article is valid even though it hasn't had a special on Animal Planet or an 8 page spread in National Geographic or in Britannica.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.117.26 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)  — 174.20.117.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you related to the very similar IP above? Dynamic IP, perhaps? As for "untrustworthy", please tell me which of the sources I removed were reputable. Most were for-profit sites; anyone can put a website up, remember, and have it look real professional to boot. The non-profits I did remove did not back up the info the article attributed them to.
 * Some general dog breed websites are unreliable. Some are borderline. Most do fail the policy on sourcing -- you can see more info about "self-published sources" here. One of the ones I removed relied on user-submitted ratings -- in what way is that appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia? I could easily purchase "goldadorclubofamerica.com" or something -- domains and hosting are very cheap -- and set up a great site in a matter of minutes that looked very official, let alone a blog with no professionalism to it.
 * "Recognized hybrid" is a fluff term. It has no real meaning. Anyone can submit a crossbreed to a designer breed registry for acceptance -- it says that right on their hybrid lists. If you can give proof instead of saying that those in favor of deleting are missing obvious signs of notability, please do. Nothing to back it up that I'm seeing. I recommend reading through the notability guideline; it may shed some light on the rationales of voters here. I'd be happy to go through each source I removed if you'd like. – anna  02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  –  anna  02:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It fails notability by means of "Significant coverage" and "reliable sources". One mention in a single guide dog organisation in the United states is not really cause for significant, nor really is a mention in a "for dummies" book. Even a listing in a designer breed registry is not notability enough, as per the post above. Keetanii (talk) 09:12, 5 June 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.