318:
than yours would -- you would delete an article about a breed in the face of multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing it. It's funny, when you get in a debate like this and someone takes the position that no citations exist -- then you show them citations, and they say "oh, well, then those are trivial." They're not - several are multi-page explanations of the breed, care and feeding, etc. Even the New York Times is more than trivial, as it explains what a peekapoo is and recognizes it as an separate breed. The sources I've cited don't limit themselves to "poodle hybrids," as you suggest. But even if a source generally discussed the various poodle hybrids, we would ordinarily include those discussed therein. Consider the case of the
445:
at the same things and disagree). Nonetheless, I should respond to the last bit you added, where you said that
Brandweek was not a reliable source. I guess what you're saying there is that Brandweek is not reliable because there's a danger that it just re-printed a press release issued by...peekapoos. (Ok, this just became the most absurd conversation two adults (presumably) have ever had.) Seriously, though, I'm sure Brandweek does re-print press releases. However, it has an editorial staff and also publishes its own (edited) articles, as I understand it has done since about 1986. Sure it's a trade publication -- but the trade is
253:, but rather than an established rule for inclusion of biological variations exists. (If you're confused about the distinction let me know; I'm glad to explain, but don't want to make this response overlong.) If we apply the same rule to dogs that we do to anything else in the natural world, we would include all reliably-sourced variations. So your best counter is that the peekapoo is not accepted as a separate, distinct variation by reliable sources (this is your notability argument).
384:-- if reliable sources (as here) devote non-trivial attention, then the breed is notable regardless of whether the AKC or any other governing body agrees. It is recognized by reliable sources as a separate breed, hybrid, or whatever - whether it is its own breed, species, genus, if reliable sources are devoting substantial attention to it, it's a notable _____. (Fill in the blank with whatever you like - the important part is the "notable.") --
326:. Are there books solely about such martins? No - they appear in encyclopedias of swallows. But would we nonetheless typically have an article about them? Of course - it's an accepted, sourced variation. As to the old Google test, the idea that notability is not fame is correct -- but commercial viability and popularity strongly suggest notability. (Or, to put it another way, you don't have to be famous to be notable, but if you
462:
visibility by doing so is not absurd. Brandweek is not a reliable source whatever the subject matter. Sources don't magically become reliable because it is impossible or unlikely that they are being influenced by outside forces on the subject. When a source is known to have poor fact checking and they are generally considered to prejudiced (say, in favor of businesses and products potentially profitable), it is not reliable.
192:. I came to this debate from reviewing another, unrelated article that links to Peekapoo, and was surprised to see a debate on deletion. Counting the various spellings I get over 100,000 web hits on Google, so it seems to be a fairly popular breed. (Try searching for "peekapoo" rather than "pekeapoo" - the former appears to be more widely accepted (93,000 hits), though the latter is probably more proper (9,000 hits).
478:
all reliable sources out there, are written by "unscrupulous breeders." I see no evidence of that whatsoever -- no conspiracy to promote a breed, but rather an acknowledgement of the fact that it exists and has become popular. So
Brandweek is "generally considered to be prejudiced" in favor of businesses (as opposed to the WSJ, that old bastion of consumer-friendly writing.)
331:
don't deem "notable." As to the examples you cite...I don't know, are you just trying to tell me that Other Stuff Doesn't Exist? Sure, other stuff was deleted, and perhaps properly so, perhaps not. If those breeds lacked reliable sources, etc., then bravo. If they were deleted in the face of reliable sources, as you propose here, then we screwed up. --
449:, and in any event no one has ever suggested that trade publications were not reliable sources. Even local newspapers are reliable sources in most cases -- there's no reason at all to think that this publication would not be. You have a decent (if wrong, in my view) argument here -- no need to press it to absurdity, man. And now back to work. --
569:. - The hybrid is basically just a combination of 2 breeds, which are already described in separate articles. Since there are so many potential hybrids, it seems more reasonable not to have a separate article on each, but instead a single article on poodle hybrids, which mentions/discusses the different common hybrids available
277:. (The 100,000 Google hits, while not reliable sources in themselves, are highly persuasive evidence that the breed is recognized as a distinct variation.) Given all that, it seems clear that this is an accepted, reliably-sourced variation of an animal, and that we would ordinarily have an article about it. --
317:
I don't believe I ever suggested that a breed should be kept merely because it existed. Rather, I'm arguing that when you have an accepted, sourced variation, it should be included -- just as with any other animal. The standard I'm explaining complies much more closely with the notability standards
289:
The idea that this should be kept simply because it exists is not valid either. We deal with subject because they are notable. The sources you have just given are trivial. None of them significantly deal with this variety of dog alone in any fashion, but generally deal with poodle hybrids. Not one of
444:
Well, I hadn't responded because (a) I have a job, and (b) this conversation has pretty much reached a conclusion - we're looking at the same sources, but where I see multiple reliable sources and significant coverage, you see...well, I guess you don't see anything (which is fine -- people can look
424:
coverage, bits of information of small importance in the rest of the source and single-sentence dicdefs, then the article fails WP:N. simply having sources does not equal automatic notability. Sources must sufficiently allow for the verification of facts, and the sources provided now fail to do so.
330:
famous, you're probably notable as well.) If there are thousands of people discussing a breed of dog, then it makes sense to say that the breed is notable -- to step out of
Knowledge (XXG) for a second, it's more than a little bizarre to say that so many people have taken note of something that we
477:
in
Kentucky (seriously, man, get a grip - we're talking about a type of dog, we can have senses of humor). Anyways, I see absolutely nothing to suggest that the article in Brandweek was written by breeders (or peekapoos...) Maybe we've hit upon the problem here - you think that this article, and
347:
and is not a standard that is grounded in either firm precedent or policy. Your statements about "recognizing it as a separate breed" are false, as the only official body to recognize the pekeapoo as a breed is the
American Canine Hybrid Association, which is a paid recognition association that is
509:
saying however, that there is nothing in the is article that cannot be included in the general poodle hybrid article. I'm not sure who added it, but the article even admits that pekeapoos have "few distinguishing characteristics". I think the sources in the article verify strongly that the dog is
131:
in general are notable, this breed when taken alone is not. Delete and redirect to the aforementioned article. As a side note: the breed is probably recognized by the
American Canine Hybrid Association. Considering that the only requirement for "official recognition" by this organization is the
461:
Oh, I'm sorry. When I said they weren't a reliable source, I just assumed you would not take it mean I was suggesting dogs are printing press releases. My bad. However, the idea that unscrupulous breeders looking to make a quick profit with a popular variety of dog would attempt to boost their
396:
I wasn't saying notability had to be confirmed for dogs through an "official source". I was saying that you are incorrect in calling this a breed. It neither has distinct, concrete characteristics that "breed true", nor is it recognized by anyone but the ACHA. Notability is confirmed through
290:
those sources demands that this article be kept separate from a larger article on poodle hybrids. Again, a Google test is not an acceptable way of passing judgment on the notability of subjects. Popularity or commercial viability is not to be conflated with the
Knowledge (XXG) standard of
266:
492:, so I really don't see where you're coming from. Throwing weasel words around to try to discredit what appears by all accounts to be a reliable publication is grasping for straws -- and you don't need to...your argument is otherwise credible (if, again, wrong in my view). --
379:
Again with "Other Stuff Doesn't Exist." Perhaps we should not have deleted those as well - I don't know. Your argument, then, seems to be not that reliable sources are required, but that recognition by some sort of "official body" is required. That does not comply with
226:. Passing a Google test, when not a single decent source for verification of facts exists, is not an acceptable reason to keep an article. The recent commercial viability of this hybrid does not entail firm notability. Your last arguments about orchids boil down to
204:. Such is the beauty of Knowledge (XXG) -- we can include not only "orchid" but also "rare orchid that grows only in the wilds of East Patagonia." So what would be the rationale behind excluding a widely available variation of dog? I'd argue for keep.--
360:, the pekeapoo pales in comparison. In consideration of the multitude of popular varieties of hybrid, this particular one has simply not received the amount of individual coverage to suggest it is more notable than deleted or redirected articles such as
504:
Forgive me for not thinking you could just be joking. But as to the idea that I think the article, or any other poodle hybrid article, is written solely by breeders...I don't. It's not only implausible, but the edit history doesn't suggest it. I
510:
notable enough to include prominently in a list of common poodle hyrbids, but I am firm in the belief that they do not support pekeapoos being notable enough for an entire separate article.
271:, and The Complete Guide to Mutts: Selection, Care and Celebration from Puppyhood to Senior. And finally we have the thousands of websites by people who own, sell, or just like the breed.
408:
And I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether it's a breed or an imaginary unicorn; its notability is confirmed through the significant coverage in the reliable sources discussed above. --
269:
116:
583:
123:
Contested prod. With only one source that does not comprehensively deal with the breed (What's Your Dog's IQ? is the title), the subject clearly fails the criteria of
249:
To take your points in reverse order, I noted that my orchid argument sounds like a "Pokemon error" so I understand your objection. However, the argument is not
352:
in most basic definition of that phrase as it applies to dogs, it is a type of hybrid. Considering the massive amount of Google hits and such that would
482:
by whom? "Known to have poor fact checking" by whom? The author of this particular story, Ginger Danto, appears to also write for the New York Times,
230:. The bottom line is: no reliable published sources focus significantly on this dog, which both suggests it is not notable and prevents the necessary
343:
This idea that confirmed variations in breed/type/subspecies should automatically be notable does not comply with any of the current variations of
256:
However the notability of peekapoos as a recognized, distinct variation can be easily sourced. Let's start with the dog breed web encyclopedias:
17:
485:, and nothing in her article suggests any bias towards or against the subject. Indeed, a quick search at the NY Times shows that
196:
appears to have searched for "pekapoo," which is not a widely-used spelling - and still found 700 hits.) Not to commit a
483:
250:
227:
89:
84:
609:
36:
93:
76:
608:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
553:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
433:, a minor trade publication that reprints press releases and acts as a booster, isn't a reliable source.
496:
453:
412:
388:
335:
281:
208:
490:
319:
197:
593:
573:
557:
549:
516:
499:
468:
456:
439:
415:
403:
391:
374:
338:
312:
284:
240:
211:
184:
166:
151:
138:
58:
479:
361:
234:
of any info in the article. If a subject cannot be sourced, then it should not have an article.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
421:
493:
450:
409:
385:
332:
299:
278:
205:
162:
non-notable "breed" and unreferenced article. Only 700 hits on google for the name
Pekapoo.
426:
223:
257:
128:
49:
381:
344:
291:
231:
219:
124:
566:
511:
463:
434:
398:
369:
307:
235:
177:
133:
80:
54:
570:
193:
163:
148:
110:
590:
357:
181:
132:
payment of $ 5 fee, it is not in any way a reliable barometer of notability.
430:
263:
303:
295:
72:
64:
268:
Then we have the books, e.g. The
Complete Idiots Guide to Designer Dogs
323:
201:
349:
602:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
474:
365:
348:
widely discredited as a promotional body. The pekeapoo is not a
294:, as you can clearly tell from the history of articles such as
260:
222:
is verified solely though reception of significant coverage in
275:
265:. Next we have no less than the New York Times as a source.
548:. Reliable sources do not seem to exist, so fails WP:N.
106:
102:
98:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
612:). No further edits should be made to this page.
425:One the sources even fails the requirements of
8:
356:notability for a truly notable type such as
420:No, when the reliable sources only provide
397:significant coverage in reliable sources.
582:: This debate has been included in the
489:find Brandweek reliable enough to cite
251:that other stuff (i.e. Pokemon) exists
200:, but we have dozens of variations of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
584:list of Organisms-related deletions
473:Oh, I'm sorry, they must not have
24:
147:Poo dogs must go - non-notable.
1:
594:03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
574:13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
558:03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
517:03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
500:03:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
469:02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
457:02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
440:01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
416:12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
404:03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
392:16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
375:16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
339:16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
313:15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
285:04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
241:00:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
212:00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
59:17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
224:reliable, published sources
185:09:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
167:21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
152:19:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
139:19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
629:
605:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
480:Generally considered
320:Brown-chested Martin
228:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
169:
46:merge and redirect
596:
587:
157:
620:
607:
588:
578:
514:
466:
437:
401:
372:
310:
238:
136:
114:
96:
34:
628:
627:
623:
622:
621:
619:
618:
617:
616:
610:deletion review
603:
591:John Vandenberg
512:
464:
435:
399:
370:
308:
236:
134:
87:
71:
68:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
626:
624:
615:
614:
598:
597:
576:
563:Redirect/Merge
560:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
502:
254:
244:
243:
214:
187:
155:
154:
129:poodle hybrids
121:
120:
67:
62:
50:poodle hybrids
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
625:
613:
611:
606:
600:
599:
595:
592:
585:
581:
577:
575:
572:
568:
567:poodle hybrid
564:
561:
559:
556:
555:
551:
547:
544:
543:
518:
515:
508:
503:
501:
498:
495:
491:
488:
484:
481:
476:
472:
471:
470:
467:
460:
459:
458:
455:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
438:
432:
428:
423:
419:
418:
417:
414:
411:
407:
406:
405:
402:
395:
394:
393:
390:
387:
383:
378:
377:
376:
373:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
346:
342:
341:
340:
337:
334:
329:
325:
321:
316:
315:
314:
311:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
283:
280:
276:
274:
270:
267:
264:
261:
258:
255:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
242:
239:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
215:
213:
210:
207:
203:
199:
198:Pokemon error
195:
191:
188:
186:
183:
179:
178:poodle hybrid
175:
172:
171:
170:
168:
165:
161:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
130:
126:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
604:
601:
579:
562:
552:
545:
506:
486:
446:
358:Labradoodles
353:
327:
322:, a type of
272:
232:verification
216:
189:
173:
159:
156:
144:
122:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
368:or others.
362:Cockeranian
220:Notability
550:Cool Hand
447:marketing
431:Brandweek
273:See, e.g.
565:to/with
513:VanTucky
494:TheOther
465:VanTucky
451:TheOther
436:VanTucky
410:TheOther
400:VanTucky
386:TheOther
371:VanTucky
333:TheOther
309:VanTucky
304:Bassador
296:Cavachon
279:TheOther
237:VanTucky
206:TheOther
174:Redirect
135:VanTucky
127:. While
117:View log
73:Pekeapoo
65:Pekeapoo
55:MastCell
571:Jerazol
422:trivial
354:suggest
324:swallow
217:Comment
202:orchids
194:Jerazol
164:Jerazol
149:MarkBul
90:protect
85:history
546:Delete
302:, and
300:Boglen
262:, and
182:Karada
160:Delete
145:Delete
94:delete
475:jokes
427:WP:RS
350:breed
180:. --
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
580:Note
554:Luke
487:they
382:WP:N
366:Chug
345:WP:N
292:WP:N
190:Keep
125:WP:N
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
589:--
586:.
497:Bob
454:Bob
413:Bob
389:Bob
336:Bob
328:are
282:Bob
209:Bob
176:to
115:– (
48:to
507:am
429:.
364:,
306:.
298:,
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
52:.
259:,
158:*
119:)
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.