229:- How does the Dog Wikiproject regard the notability of mixed breed dogs? Personally, anything that's referenced so often on the web (see a google search, google news search (returns zero), and a google news archive search (returns 10 hits)), is usually notable. I'm not saying that a # of hits implies notability but it, very generally, it means that enough people are talking/thinking/writing about it for it to be notable. I'm guessing the Dog Wikiproject has discussed this issue at length and come up with a much better answer than anything we'll come up with at this AfD.
315:
311:
318:
produces 8 hits, none of which are coverage of the breed at all; only mentions of or coverage of dogs who are
Australian Retrievers (lost/found dog, describing the dog of an owner who was interviewed during coverage of an event). It seems obvious to me that there's some coverage out there that
249:
Designer crosses are typically measured against the general notability guideline. Perhaps some people are thinking about these dogs but no reliable information is published (except that it's a cross between the Aussie and Golden). Also, bear in mind that "Australian
Retriever" is prone to
263:
I just can't see how most are worthy of standalone articles. A list would be okay if not for the following: there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these designer dogs, most exactly like this one (lacking coverage in reputable sources). The notable ones, which include
291:
That makes sense. With the number of recognized breeds, assuming notability of every plausible combination would result in a large amount of under-sourced articles. I can't see how a designer breed is notable without passing
154:
246:
148:
203:
254:
115:
185:
Dogbreedinfo.com has been deemed an unreliable source previously, so don't throw that out there! I haven't found coverage in any suitable sources whatsoever.
258:
88:
83:
92:
75:
169:
136:
17:
319:
assumes that the breed exists but I don't feel that this breed (or any designer breed without significant coverage) can have
130:
353:
333:
286:
239:
218:
195:
57:
368:
126:
36:
367:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
79:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
176:
71:
63:
53:
284:
216:
193:
162:
142:
348:
277:
209:
186:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
247:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs/Dog_breeds_task_force/Archive_2#Breeds_notability_guidelines
49:
324:
230:
343:
320:
307:
293:
265:
109:
253:
Here are two previous AfDs that you may be interested in reading through:
269:
273:
361:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
276:, are perfectly valid albeit in need of more robust sourcing.
250:
false-positives, and I see a few in the Google News results.
342:
No independent indication of notability given, or found.
245:
Discussion here, though it never really went anywhere:
105:
101:
97:
161:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
371:). No further edits should be made to this page.
255:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Corgi-Chihuahua
204:list of Organisms-related deletion discussions
175:
8:
202:Note: This debate has been included in the
201:
259:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo
7:
310:. "Australian Retriever" produces
24:
323:applied to support an article.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
388:
316:Google News Archive search
364:Please do not modify it.
354:21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
334:13:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
287:19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
240:18:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
219:18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
196:17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
58:23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
312:no Google New search
72:Australian Retriever
64:Australian Retriever
44:The result was
221:
207:
379:
366:
351:
346:
330:
329:
282:
236:
235:
214:
208:
191:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
387:
386:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
376:
375:
369:deletion review
362:
349:
344:
327:
325:
278:
233:
231:
210:
187:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
385:
383:
374:
373:
357:
356:
337:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
261:
251:
223:
222:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
384:
372:
370:
365:
359:
358:
355:
352:
347:
341:
338:
336:
335:
331:
322:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
295:
290:
289:
288:
285:
283:
281:
275:
271:
267:
262:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
228:
225:
224:
220:
217:
215:
213:
205:
200:
199:
198:
197:
194:
192:
190:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
363:
360:
339:
332:
303:
279:
266:Goldendoodle
238:
226:
211:
188:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
149:free images
50:Mkativerata
314:hits. A
345:Miyagawa
306:- Fails
270:Cockapoo
227:Question
116:View log
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
350:(talk)
340:Delete
328:Yeller
321:WP:IAR
308:WP:GNG
304:Delete
294:WP:GNG
274:Puggle
272:, and
234:Yeller
127:Google
93:delete
46:delete
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
280:Anna
212:Anna
189:Anna
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
177:TWL
114:– (
326:Ol
268:,
257:,
232:Ol
206:.
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
296:.
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.