Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest living dogs


 * 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. Also withdrawn by nominator. Canley (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

List of longest living dogs

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Long-standing issues have not been resolved and the main source cited, Guinness Records, is unreliable (WP:RS) because key information such as edition is unobtainable. This means there is a serious concern about WP:V and the list is wide open to WP:OR and WP:POV abuse. The article cannot be maintained and, in any case, the content is WP:TRIVIA. The case of Bluey (dog) should be included in the parent article so, in that respect, perhaps this could be merged with and redirected to Dog. As it stands, the article presents a real problem for reviewers at WP:RPC. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC) No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article has been on my watchlist for some time and as the nom notes, the sources are unreliable.  Perhaps if reliable info can be found, there can be a subsection in Dog that lists the verified cases.  In the current list, there are significant problems with verification.  Jip Orlando (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Rationale seems to say that we should delete because the article needs cleanup. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The rationale also states that the list may be open to OR and POV abuse? - not reasons to delete... Rationale also cites WP:TRIVIA and that is just an essay. No policy or guideline based reasons to delete were provided in the nomination rationale. The list passes WP:LISTN criteria - provides information to our readers. The reliable sources exist so we keep such articles WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination doesn't say anything about cleanup. It says that the main source is unreliable which means, as I have now inserted, that the key issues are WP:V and WP:RS. How do you know reliable sources exist? I can't find them and I have searched. The Guinness site only confirms the case of Bluey, none of the others. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Referenced and notable.  Users need this information.  To be sure, article can be improved, but there is no reason to delete. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.  WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not disputed and is irrelevant to this discussion. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as the nomination proposes cleanup/merger rather than deletion. The main title-holder of Bluey is well-established and other contenders such as Maggie get reasonable coverage too.  As we have a list of oldest cats, deletion of the dogs would not be neutral. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination proposes deletion with merger as a possible alternative. It does not mention cleanup at all. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The nomination's main issue seems to be that the list is difficult to maintain. That's a cleanup issue, not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting point one of WP:LISTPURP. schetm (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The crux of the nom is saying that Guinness World Records is NOT a reliable source, which is obviously not true, and that the information is "unobtainable". Again, that's not true. For example, I have every single edition of the Guinness Book of Records printed in the UK (apart from those really rare editions from the 1950s), and I suspect other Wiki editors have access to them too. You can buy them for next to nothing from eBay, Amazon or any second-hand/charity shop.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason to delete given in nomination. Whether you think an article can be kept up to date or not, is irrelevant.   D r e a m Focus  17:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's no reason to limit this to "verified" (where "verified" means specifically "verified by one commercial entity in particular"), but that's something for the talk page. Seems like a notable enough topic without falling into any of the WP:NOT pitfalls. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Obviously a consensus to keep so best to close this now. Thanks to all who took part. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.