Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppy breath


 * 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 of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Puppy breath
nn dicdef that's not NPOV and unverifiable Amcfreely 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As a dog owner (and they haven't been puppies for a long time), I'm familiar with the phenomenon, but definitely not documented or encyclopedic. Fan1967 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Grafikm_fr 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, it looks like someone's attempt to be helpful and contribute, so no bad faith &mdash;WAvegetarian&bull; CONTRIBUTIONS TALK &bull; EMAIL &bull; 15:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or (better) Merge to dog article. "puppy breath" gets 62,000 hits on Google, so it's not "nn", I have real trouble seeing what's POV, and it's clearly verifiable. It is pretty much just a dicdef, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Not everyone finds puppy breath nice. Usually people who don't are what is termed "animal hater."" Amcfreely 16:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see-- the article has changed quite a bit from when it was nominated. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:V. --Ter e nce Ong 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with puppy or dog. I don't think it merits its own article. Mr. Lefty 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge with dog. I'm a veterinarian and I hear this term all the time, but I doubt I could find a ref to it in a textbook or journal (if I do I'll cite it).  I can see why it was originally nominated, but the newer version is a lot better. --Joelmills 22:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a stupid thing to write an encyclopedia entry on, but there'll be enough people who want to look it up. - Richardcavell 22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-encyclopedic M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Tough call but I feel it is notable enough to deserve its own article. Could be useful in a constructive manner.--Cini 16:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I've revised it substantially since the initial flag for deletion and since it was tampered with previously with the "animal haters"/vandalism comment. "Puppy breath" is a common term among people who have or breed puppies. Any vet can tell you that the condition and term exists. However, it is not a dictionary definition because it does not appear in the dictionary. (I used dictionary.com and found no entry, but have not checked the OED.) It further proposes a probable/logical explanation for the scent, which has no known (to my knowledge) scientific explanation and could be a potential research project for a vet/biologist. It's inadvisable to merge the entry into "dog" directly as it is much less relevant to "dog" and far more relevent to "puppy" or "puppies", both of which redirect to "dog" and thereby prohibit more detailed discussion about puppies. I feel that "puppy breath" is best kept as a separate entry with a hyperlink within the text discussing puppies under "dog" entry. I added a "See also: puppy breath" link under the "dog" entry and it has gone unchallenged for 24 hours despite the popularity of the "dog" entry and that entry having been edited 10 times in the last 24 hours. "Puppy breath" may currently be a "weak entry", but in time it will unquestionably be added to by the numerous dog owners/breeders out there.Rtperch 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "could be a potential research project for a vet/biologist" = WP:NOR Amcfreely 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless some citations of use are shown from non-trivial publications. Even then it's probably better in Wiktionary. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2006 (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.