Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppy shower


 * 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   redirect to Baby shower. Consensus is that we should not have this article. Whether and how much to merge to baby shower is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  12:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Puppy shower

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible redirect to baby shower. It's not an unheard of concept, so it might be worth a one sentence mention on the baby shower article, but only one sentence. It's basically the same thing but surrounding a puppy, so it's not like there needs to be much expansion on the subject. I'm kind of ambivalent on the redirect, so if anyone has an argument against it, I'm willing to be persuaded. I wasn't able to find anything that would be considered a reliable source to show that the term is notable, which is my biggest issue. Most of the ghits I found (and there were many) that was actually about a puppy shower were links to store websites and dozens of blogs and youtube videos. I'm not against the idea of deleting it, if it comes to that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * I'm going to go with delete here. A redirecto to baby shower doesn't even seem like it could conceivably work, though maybe a brief blurb therein about this is worth a mention.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is documented in numerous books about dogs. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The PROD was removed and since my deletion rationale went with it, I'll repeat here. Wikipedia is not for dictionary definitions. At present, the article is nothing more then a definition.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  03:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The article's current state is not really the point. The point is if the article is encyclopedic or not.--Coin945 (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, why isn't the article's current state the point? We are nominating this article for deletion, not the general idea or an idea of what the article might look like in the future...Oh, and wth does "encyclopedic" mean?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  09:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the whole philosophy of Wikipedia - someone puts up a stub article, which yes, may very well be just a dic def, and then others with more knowledge come along and build on it? So yes, I think that, and have always assumed that AfD's were about an concept's sum possibility as an encyclopedic article.--Coin945 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that sounds nice, but even stubs need to follow WP policies. At present, (note that at this AfD I'm not judging a future article) this article is just a definition and nothing else. Now, in the future, I do think that there is the potential that puppy showers could have a great article. It would take a lot of sources, and not just passing mentions like you linked below, but I don't think the topic is totally worthless at all. Again though, let me say that I'm not judging what the article could be but what it is right now. If the article was rewritten before the AfD was up, then I would judge that. But if we tried to comment on articles at AfD based on "possibility"...well...that really wouldn't work. Everyone would have a different view of how an article might look one day, and how would we apply our policies without being able to see what we're judging?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * THe thing is... well, if I knew that the article stood a chance, I would have been crazily editing the article to edit it up to a better standard. I expect the sum total of the current article and a list of possible sources to be enough to decide if the article has encyclopedic merit. What's the point of me wasting all this time using every single source i can find for the article only to be deleted. If I know the article has no chance no matter what I do, I wont be wasting my time. Now that I know that the article has some possible encyclopedic merit, I may choose to furiously edit the article with other edits. But without you saying that this concept is encyclopedic, I never would've done that. This is why I think it important to, right from the start, decide if the concept deserves its own encyclopedia article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasting time? BS. We're all arguing over one line of text on an online encyclopedia. We can't waste much more time then that. ;)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Touché... but do you at least see where I'm coming from?--Coin945 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about that^. Couldn't resist =P. Anyway, remember that just because the article is deleted doesn't mean you've lost your work. You can easily copy it now, or ask an admin to undelete it and move it too your userspace where you can work on it for as long or as little as you like. Now, you've got some decent stuff below, but we'll need more then just that. The Gazette reads like a blog, and it wouldn't last if that was it, and just saying that Millie (Bush?) got one really doesn't mean much in terms of establishing notability. The books are better, but even then an argument could be made for deletion because "its only passing mentions/blurbs" etc. Anything else you got?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well..... no.. at least I don't think so.... there may very well be sources out there that that justify this article's existence. I have only included a few that I collected after a quick search. But point taken.


 * P.S. the whole thing with Millie is basically this: Millie is the nickname of Bush's dog (aka "the white house dog", or "the first dog" - like "the first lady"). Her puppies were given to family members of Bush's family and as a result a puppy shower was held in her homour. That's pretty much it. Not much, I know, but it seems like the concept has ben acknowledged by people high places. That's why I kept it in.--Coin945 (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note It was written about in The Gazette, per, White House/Bush connection at , and also: , , --Coin945 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Colonel Warden says "The topic is documented in numerous books". Well, the concept is mentioned in several books, but I can find no substantial coverage except as a marketing ploy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article. Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete / merge as non-notable neolgism. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to baby shower. The concept of a puppy shower has not been shown to be notable enough for its own article.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confer 00:31, 10 December 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.