Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marnie (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. Nakon 01:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Marnie (dog)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lovable pooch with, AFAICT, several sources repeating the same ten sentences over and over, in various orders. This kind of superficial human(?)-interest stuff isn't GNG. EEng (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this a humorous nomination? If not, note that GNG does not require different content on every source. Seems like a frivolous nomination. Esquivalience t 18:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not frivolous, and GNG does deprecate multiple "sources" which are in fact relating the same few facts over and over:
 * It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
 * Four of the sources in the article are social media accounts run by the dog's owner, and of the other four, one (for example) is literally three sentences:
 * Prepare to make room in your heart for another Insta-famous dog. Marnie, a 12-year-old Shih Tzu, was adopted in 2012 by her now-owner, Shirley, from a Connecticut shelter, where she suffered a number of health problems ranging from an eye infection, decaying teeth, vestibular syndrome (which causes her head tilt) — and she just plain stank from years of living on the streets. But now, the healthy and happy lady is living it up in the Big Apple, where she’s managed to wiggle her way into the hearts of the world’s biggest celebs, from Tina Fey and James Franco to Jonah Hill and Questlove.
 * This is extremely superficial coverage, and the other three sources aren't much better. EEng (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the sources are not just the same thing with "minor alterations". How about this? The source covers other things than a brief history of Marnie. The example of "superficial coverage" above covers encounters with many celebrities that the other sources do not. A Google News search uncovers a plethora of reliable sources that cover different aspects of Marnie. Have you tried to find other sources other than the ones in the article; see WP:BEFORE § D (it seems like WP:BEFORE wasn't done). Esquivalience t 20:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – Additional source searches below. North America1000 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – Also see this source search
 * – Also see this source search


 * Keep – Upon a review of sources, the topic passes WP:GNG. Has received international news coverage. North America1000 20:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed with Northamerica, a simple google search shows a lot of coverage. The references are reliable and diversified.  Lethal Flower ''Talk/Reply 22:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, a quick Google News search reveals more articles from Daily Mail, Mirror , and South China Morning Post . Dates of respective articles are substantially apart, suggesting that this is not an isolated one-off coverage but continual coverage over time. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NA1000 Asked me to drop in again. I don't have the energy to analyze this tide of nonsense, but nonsense it is. This is a publicity stunt which should, at best, be a redirect to Shirley Braha (assuming it survives deletion). EEng (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I'm closely connected with the subject (I am not closely connected, nor am I paid to write this)? Do you see any in-neutrality or promotional content in the article that indicates that this is a "publicity stunt"? Anyway, there is already consensus to keep this under WP:GNG which states that notable articles are almost always suitable for a standalone article, not to be merged or redirected to another page. Esquivalience t 01:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about you -- I'm talking about the dog's owner. Why is everyone on WP so completely nuts? And as I already said, I only came back here because NA1000 asked me to. If y'all think this "organism" qualifies for an article, by all means knock yourselves out. EEng (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:PPOV. Esquivalience t 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - the Daily Mail is not a good source to use for a keep !vote, but it appears in other sources as well in a news search, and they show this is an internet phenomenon. I appreciate EEng's comments that a lot of the sources are of the trashy tabloids or near-tabloid style, but I think I could legitimately cite this as a novel application of WP:NOTCENSORED - articles that meet the requirements for inclusion should be included, no matter how we might wince and dismiss them as irrelevant unencyclopedic nonsense. Bacon sandwich, anyone? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This has got nothing to do with PPOV or CENSORED. A bunch of tweets by the dog's owner aren't independent coverage no matter how often they're reprinted or rehashed. But look, I'm not that concerned. I hardly ever say this, but this time I will: I'm unwatching. EEng (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So the sources are just reprints or rehashes of the tweets? Esquivalience t 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Take all the tabloids away and we are left with SCMP (per above), ABC News, and TIME Magazine. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 10 April 2015 (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.