Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Woods (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. Seems to be a consensus that the tiger (err, dog) is notable, and the sources seem to confirm this claim. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods (dog)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This was a bit of a confusing article when I found it, so I decided to clean it up a bit. And the resulting version didn't look up to much. After some attempts at improving it, I drew a blank, and so have decided to Afd it on grounds of basic notability. I could find nothing remotely corroborating what the article previously claimed, that Tiger is "one of the top show dogs in the United States". It seems from the passing mentions after he failed to win Best in Show in 2009, it might have been different had he won, but he didn't. Best of Breed and Hound Group, albeit in a top show, still looks unremarkable to me, and these feats are not particularly given much attention in the refs beyond routine coverage it seems (by comparison, there are countless breeds and even 7 overall Groups in that show). The one thing you would think would also get coverage, his celebrity name, hasn't really, with only this short LA TImes blog entry paying it any attention. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see numerous reliable sources demonstrating the dog's notability, including the major U.S. sources ESPN and USA Today. You removed a lot of prose text and changed it into a list. This is an encyclopedia designed to be prose not lists - so you did the opposite of what you're ideally supposed to do. I saw little fluff material in the article before your removal. Earlier this year, I reviewed this article while it was waiting in the queues for Did You Know and editing out some fluff.  Royal broil  02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Both ESPN and USA Today sources are about the winner, not Tiger. Their actual coverage of Tiger is a single mention as one of the 6 other runners up, and infact, they both copied that paragraph from the same source. And lists are perfectly fine for this kind of info, I cannot fathom how you can think converting it to prose would be of any help to a reader. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * winning a Group at Westminster confers automatic notability for show dogs - that's exactly why I think the dog is notable. Well put. It's the only dog show that I ever heard of. Has won "at the highest level of a sport".  Royal broil  12:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that judgement of dog notability if that's to be it, but I would hope that any such statement is made on a better basis than simply 'its the only show you've ever heard of'. I've heard of Curfts and Westminster, but I don't consider myself a better judge of notability than external sources. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the version as of a minute ago demonstrates notability adequately. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How? I found nothing, not one source, that supported the claims the previous version contained. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the dog has won several major events, including best hound at the most prestigious dog shows in the world--the westminster kennel club. Furthermore, he was widely covered during that time period.  Is part of his fame derived from his name?  Yes.  Which might be part of the reason why Paul Harvey covered him---which is where I first heard of Tiger Woods.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, the blog mentioned above would count as a reliable source because the author part of LA Times staff and producer for their blogs. If you wanted to include blogs, then there are scores of sources.  I tried to keep to those that were reliable and didn't simply repeat the same stories.  But Tiger Woods garnered a fair amount of coverage because of his name.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which one might we be referring to? There are at least a dozen... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which one what are we referring?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the blog was unreliable, I was merely pointing out that, despite what you seem to be saying here, none of the coverage is because of the name, and the blog entry is the only ref that even mentions it. Everything else looks like routine coverage for any dog with a similar record, irrespective of the name. If that's notability for show dogs, that's fine, but as I said in the nom, it doesn't look remarkable to me, and many other dogs have achieved the same, if not better. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Several independent references, and the dog won groups at Westminster. Article could do with a decent tidy and re-write - not a deletion. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Miyagawa   (talk)  13:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine as I said above, as long as we are clear that this will establish a precedent that winning a Group at Westminster confers automatic notability for show dogs. That is potentially allowing a miximum of 6 new dog articles per year, just for this US show. Expand that logic to shows in other countries, and I think this stance becomes distinctly unlikely to be supported going forward, without a better definition of show dog notability. MickMacNee (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete having an interesting name does not make a dog notable, even if the morning news writes a puff piece. winning some conformance shows, even at Westminster, does not make a dog notable. I have a hard time justifying individual articles for even Best in Show, ugh. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Strong delete - Common example of people mixing up WP:N and WP:RS, which are separate but similar. Reliable sources demonstrate that a topic is notable. This dog is not, and none of those sources suggest otherwise. If they do, paste those sentences below. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Golf.com covers tiger woods explicitly because of his name.
 * The Times Herald Record on Tiger Woods.
 * [Tiger Woods wins "Best Opposite Sex" at the 2009 Pruina National Specaility (I could not make that up.)
 * [MSNBC--- Despite economy, Westminster show goes on: Ticket sales slow, but entries like 'Tiger Woods' steal the show Article focuses on Tiger Woods.
 * an example of a blog that is cover tiger explicitly because of his name.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, mostly per Shadowjams. The mentions of this subject in reliable sources are mostly passing and trivial (oh, look, he has an interesting name). Winning awards is often used as an indicator of notability for people and creative products (books, movies), but I'm dubious about the application of that to animals, particularly when the awards were not the top honors at the most prestigious show. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm the one that provided the sources, not Shadowjams. Winning the hound group is a top honor.  But the coverage of Tiger Woods is without dispute, there are scores of articles on him (the challenge is finding them through the billions of articles on the real tiger woods.) But MSNBC having an article exclusively on the dog, as well as the Times Herald Recorder, and Golf.com, LATimes, ... those are major sources giving coverage to the dog.  ABC News, The DogChannel writes, Tiger has accumulated an impressive show record..  Heck, the dog has made it into popular reference ala the SportsGeek and Paul Harvey.  And ESPN covered him because of his name. Here's another story about Tiger Woods in the Herald Tribune BEFORE the Westminster event.
 * Lest we think this was his sole claim to fame, in addition to the other finishes I proved above: here is a third place finish at another major event, 2007 results for the Trenton Kennel Club, 2008 results for the Pioneer Valley Kennel Club, qualified for the 2009 American Kennel Club National Championship . A second place finish at the North Country Kennel Club in 2008 Won best in breed at the Westminster Kennel Club in 2008 .  Won best in breed at Scottish Deerhound Club of America in 2009.
 * Some other information, in order to use the "CH" before a dogs name, the dog has to earn at least 15 points at American Kennel Club sanctioned events. In order to win a championship point, the dog has to be the best dog of its breed and sex at a dog show. The CH designates the dog as "champion", the owners can continue to compete them at the national level. Tiger Woods is a champion dog.  The American Kennel Club has 34 entries for Tiger Woods in 2009---mostly where he has placed at various dog shows.
 * The notion that there aren't sources for this dog are ridiculous. This dog has competed at the highest level of its sport and won.  He has garnered additional coverage because of his name.  Yes, his name has played a role in his fame, but you can't discount it.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything new provided here that isn't of the same standard of coverage that is already present and has already been discussed. Again, none of the above sources have imo taken any real attention of Tiger because of the name, (and again, they all re-use other single sources). You listing his other competitive records, many of which we already knew from the article, is bordeline original research without providing third party RS assements of it as a whole with regards to how notable that makes Tiger. The single (selected) phrase of "an impressive show record" from www.dogchannel.com is the closest to showing that so far, and even that is just part of what is again routine coverage of the results of the 2009 Westminster show, and not an article about Tiger specifically at all. And it makes it clear that the Westminster Group win is above any of these other feats ("his most illustrious win yet"), so we are back to square one - ignoring the expected but rather trivial coverage due to name dropping, is winning a Group at Westminster the bar of show dog notability? I don't see any real difference either if this bar were re-written as 'any champion desingation (CH) dog is automatically notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is ample coverage in reliable sources about the subject of this article, a Scottish deerhound. See this article from the Times Herald-Record. This article presents information about the deerhound's breed, age, and accomplishments. Although the dog's name may have garnered it coverage in the Times Herald-Record, the article is primarily about the deerhound's dog show accomplishments, not its name. I consider it original research to classify this article as being a "puff piece" when there is no evidence of it being so. The article discusses how the dog was the "winner of the Hound group and Best in Show competitor at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show" and how it would compete "against six other dogs for the title of Best in Show". The depth of coverage in this article is enough for this source to qualify as the "significant coverage" required by Notability. Additionally, this blog from the Los Angeles Times provides decent coverage about this deerhound. This article verifies that the dog's owner is Gayle Bontecou and its handler is Clifford W. Steele. How does this article establish that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable? It states that "[a] Scottish deerhound has never won best in show at Westminster." Because the Los Angeles Times found it worthy to make this dog the subject of one of its publications, Tiger Woods (dog) is clearly notable. This article from Dog Channel provides a paragraph of coverage about this deerhound. The article states "Tiger has accumulated an impressive show record, but taking the Group at the Garden is without a doubt his most illustrious win yet … quite a feat for a 7-year-old dog of a giant breed." Phrases such as "impressive show record" and "quite a feat" establish that this deerhound has notable achievements. Winning "Best in Show" at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, a prestigious contest, is already a good indicator that Tiger Woods (dog) is notable. Receiving media coverage because of these accomplishments cements this notability. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He didn't win Best in Show at Westminster, he won Best in Group. MickMacNee (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (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.