Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkie poos


 * 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. @pple complain 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yorkie poos

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. The sources added by the user who contested the prod in no way meet the qualification of "significant coverage". The first is a one-sentence news mention from 1968 (long before poodle hybrids gained the immense popularity they enjoy today), the other two are general books on canine hybrids which do not focus specifically on this breed. I removed a citation to a wall calendar featuring the hybrid, as it in no way comes under the definition of a RS. While poodle hybrids in general are very notable, this breed is decidedly not so when taken on its own. Its only real "claim to fame" is perhaps membership in the American Hybrid Canine Association, but that only entails that a $5 fee was paid to "officially recognize" the breed. Delete and redirect to poodle hybrids. VanTucky (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to poodle hybrids, per nom, for lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the exact same reasoning I gave for the Lhasa Poo AfD. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Yep. I guess someone could pull up some Reliable sources, but the point is, is that the breed by itself does not appear very WP:N even with sources. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 19:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: My sources satisfy "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." I'll also point out that if Amazon sells calendars, license plates, t-shirts, and stuffed animals specific to Yorkie Poos, that's clear evidence of notability. Billgordon1099 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, one-sentence mentions and other small sections of larger works are trivial. None of the sources focus solely and significantly on the breed, and needless to say, Amazon.com cannot be used as a reliable source to verify encyclopedic information. If no reliable way of verifying factual assertions exists, and no published sources exclusively and comprehensively deal with the subject, then having an article is inappropriate. The commercial exploitation of something is not a reliable barometer of notability; case in point, there are hundreds of thousands of pornographic sites in every language focusing on any bizarre fetish imaginable. But we do not consider them notable. Popularity and commercial marketability are not synonyms for the concept of notability. I would also like to indicate that this would seem to be a WP:POINT issue with user Billgordon, as every single contest to a related prod he has made so far included the edit summary "'No to deletionism". VanTucky  (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nor, of course, are there any sources devoted solely to the Brown-chested Martin; rather, it's covered in a book about swallows.  This breed of dog appears to have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources -- the mentions therein are more than trivial, though less than exclusive, as WP:RS requires.  Indeed, it appears that there is a breed club, and quite a few websites devoted to the breed.  To address the WP:POINT issue, remember to assume good faith; people who consistently disagree with you aren't thereby making a WP:Point. --TheOtherBob 13:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to poodle hybrid. Non-notable, and the subject matter can be adequately covered in poodle hybrid. -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)   (The Game)  22:25, 29 August 2007 (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.