Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skateboarding 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 merge and redirect to Dog_training  Waggers (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Skateboarding dog

 * – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and the references are weak. If this warrants an article then my cat should get one for attacking my fingers when I wiggle them at her.  Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per my comment down the page. Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Skateboarding dogs are quite famous now and since there seem to be quite a few of them and they are something of an archetype now, we should have an article which covers them collectively. I have started cleaning up the article and it should be given a chance to develop from its current stubby start. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable subject, I see no reason to keep.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 23:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with dog tricks, as per the post made by Son at 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC).—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable on two levels. Since dogs don't instinctively choose to balanace themselves upon a rolling object, it's a difficult trick to train a dog for, and a favorite at dog shows; and, when there is film footage or videotape of a skateboarding dog, it often ends up on a news show as part of a "human interest" story.  The four sources cited thus far are among many out there. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, of the sources listed in the article, only two of them are reliable. One of them is not covering it independent of the subject(dogs in the news(some site)), and the other is just a randomly uploaded video.  The reason video sites like the one sourced in the article, or YouTube are not reliable is because videos can easily be edited.  Secondly, the patience required for a task or the difficulty of a task does not make a task notable, at least, as per our policies regarding nobility.  Whether or not it is a favorite at dog shows is irrelevant, as they are not independent of the subject.  Thirdly, as per WP's inclusion policy, the news story has to be more then just a passing reference.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with dog tricks, as per the post made by Son at 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC).—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 06:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's notable on two levels. Since dogs don't instinctively choose to balanace themselves upon a rolling object, it's a difficult trick to train a dog for, and a favorite at dog shows; and, when there is film footage or videotape of a skateboarding dog, it often ends up on a news show as part of a "human interest" story.  The four sources cited thus far are among many out there. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, of the sources listed in the article, only two of them are reliable. One of them is not covering it independent of the subject(dogs in the news(some site)), and the other is just a randomly uploaded video.  The reason video sites like the one sourced in the article, or YouTube are not reliable is because videos can easily be edited.  Secondly, the patience required for a task or the difficulty of a task does not make a task notable, at least, as per our policies regarding nobility.  Whether or not it is a favorite at dog shows is irrelevant, as they are not independent of the subject.  Thirdly, as per WP's inclusion policy, the news story has to be more then just a passing reference.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment There are many tricks that are difficult to teach a dog, should these have articles aswell?—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 05:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dog tricks seem quite a notable topic since there are many books on the subject. We only have a redirect for this at the moment.  All you find at the end of this is Dog training which seems quite inadequate.  I may expand my scope to develop the more general topic.  Perhaps the skateboarding stuff could be merged into this.  But deletion won't assist this process, either for the editor or for the reader, for whom skateboarding dog seems a natural search term.  Note that the article had over 2000 hits in May and so there definitely is a readership for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please remember that page hits does not establish nobility.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobility? We have that too since they are featured in Lords of Dogtown which, by coincidence, is on TV here tonight.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you do not, as nobility is not inherited because of a passing reference.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 09:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, please note that to establish notability, the subject in question must receive significant coverage from independent sources outside of the subject, therefore, the fact that there are books on the subject is irrelevant.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We also need to keep in mind that just because something is covered by news outlets does not mean it warrants its own page. Look at multiple birth, almost all multiple births over quintuplet recieve coverage from news outlets, appearances on talk shows, and the like.  This does not mean that each individual set of large multiple births deserve their own article.  The same holds true for dog tricks.  While skateboarding dogs are featured in 20 second segments on local news networks and films (the previously mentioned Lords of Dogtown) this does not mean they warrant their own article. Sonuvafitch (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Never heard of that one, I'm afraid. It would be a reflection of notability if a publisher came out with a book on the subject, particularly if this is in addition to other mentions of the subject in published works.  Keep trying. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the sort of ridiculous trivia that gets Wikipedia a bad name. Meanwhile, WP:NOT etc. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems like a notable enough topic. I also would not object to a merge to "Dog tricks" or whatever. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you please describe how it is notable? So far, the above arguments haven't held much water, I'd like to hear yours.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 06:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Skateboarding dogs have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And so, by our definition, they are presumed to be notable.   Whether you or I think that skateboarding dogs are important or interesting is not relevant.  What matters is whether others consider them worthy of notice.Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they have not, if they have, and I am wrong, please cite your sources.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Daedalus on this one, I'm willing to have my mind changed if I see some references on why this is important. Sonuvafitch (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Importance is irrelevant as notability is not determined by this. What matters is the appearance of the topic in some sources and we have an adequate number of those. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, notability is determined by such, please read our policy on such before participating and claiming such in AfDs. Secondly, as I have already proved above, you do not have significant coverage in order to prove notability, one of your sources is not independent of the subject, while another is just a video of a dog skateboarding, which does not assert notability, while a third is a news hub that you can only access by logging in, which means it is not verifiable(you have to be able to access the source no matter the circumstances).  You do not have an adequate number of sources independent of the subject.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As small note, you must subscribe(for a fee) to the third news site, which is against policy if it is to be used as a source.—  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, poor word choice on my part, from now on I will only use "notability". Regardless of the number of sources, this topic is not one that should stand alone, as I mentioned in one of my previous statements, drawing parallels to multiple birth.  Each large set of multiple births gets loads of media coverage - ranging from magazine articles in national magazines, to television coverage and talk show appearances (I'm actually friends with a set of quintuplets) - in much the same way that dogs such as Tyson (mentioned in the article) does.  This being said, multiple births remain under the umbrella topic of multiple birth and tend not to recieve their own pages.  There needs to be a certain amount of consistency on this site, otherwise we head down a rather slippery slope.  Honestly we've already started, as Tyson the dog has his own page.  Are we going to make pages for every dog that can skateboard now?  what about other tricks that are difficult to perform, does each dog capable of performing those tricks deserve their own article?  Also note, that while Tyson the dog has his own article, Toto - played by Terry the Dog (from the Wizard of Oz) does not.  WP has incredibly difficult standards for bands and other personalities (actors, writers, etc), I don't see why dogs and tricks should have lower standards.  This being said, up for review is skateboarding dog, which is a dog trick.  As such, I will change my opinion and say that the topic should be merged with an article about dog tricks, but I'm not convinced that its notability warrants its own article. Sonuvafitch (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to dog tricks article, with redirect. Seems as notable as other feats included on comedy video-clip shows, like people falling of bikes or people dropping video cameras. Hilarious! I'm sure some of the cites are ok, but not enough to have an article by itself.Yobmod (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, i forgot babies-with-gas pulling faces - how can these not have articles?!
 * Delete/Merge to Dog tricks, converting the redirect into an article. Per WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. External links are of the propety of the subject(or the subject`s owner), and per WP:NOBJ, Substantial coverage in reliable sources... only one in-line cite. That`s not substantial. -- TALKIN  PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  18:59, 25 July 2008 (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.