Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tootsie (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tootsie (dog)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable dog, possibly hoax, unable to find reliable sources referring to the mutt. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=dog+saves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdvgef (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (I'm not sure how this link is relevant. No mention of Tootsie on said page.) --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. If there was an exclusive in the Daily Mail, I can't find it here. Nor does google return anything. Even if it did, would it make the mutt notable? No, because it would be a one time event. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  21:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete indeed; QuiteUnusual is right. Even if it were there (and I'm baffled--why couldn't the author supply the specific article??), this still wouldn't satisfy WP:N. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow! "Best Dog of the Year", the Daily Mail bought the exclusive rights to the story, recognised by Prime Minister Tony Blair, the town erected a statue on Bramdean Common in its memory... the only way this story could get any better would be if you said that Tootsie was a shaggy dog. Good luck on making any future contributions.  Mandsford (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nice story if true, but as it is there don't seem to be any sources to support it, and either way it would be a one time event and not warrant an article on the subject. --skew-t (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think its downright preposterous that you consider this article to be a fabrication. I may have an imaginative mind, but even this is too far beyond the realms of my ability. I find it outrageous that individuals (not including QuiteUnusual) who clearly do not reside in the United Kingdom, can have an opinion on the validity of article. Perhaps before disregarding the story as a ‘one off’ you should take into account the way in which this dog captured the hearts of the nation. Indeed I have to presume that QuiteUnusual has lived in a bubble during 2003, or indeed refused to acknowledge any news stories that are associated with the Daily Mail. I freely admit I posted that link (above) without actually looking to see if it covered the story, but that’s just further evidence to suggest that much of the UK public would EXPECT online coverage. I have actually done some research and found that some ‘older stories’ were cut from the website in June 2006 due to storage issues (I will be asking for there rendition). This is an important article to uphold, this dog captured the nation and to say that the article should be taken down is outrageous and shows absolute disrespect to the remembrance of this dog and her owners. Even if personally you are not 100% certain of this articles credibility, the notion to refer to Tootsie as a ‘Mutt’ is shameful and probably indicates some personality failings. --80.42.210.46 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) — 80.42.210.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * (Note that the article remains completely uncited). --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:HOAX. The so-called statue is a lawn ornament.  There is no coverage about this dog and its heroic act, so the article fails verifiability.  And the claim that the Daily Mail had an exclusive and also conveniently purged its old articles is a far-fetched.  Old news articles are offered up behind pay walls, and would be turned up in a google news search.  Furthermore, a paper can get an exclusive from the family, but they cannot prevent other papers from reporting a a news event.  So even if this did happen (which I seriously doubt), no other newspapers thought that the event was notable enough to provide coverage.  Therefore, it fails notability.  But really, it's a contravention of WP:HOAX. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 2 December 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.