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 merge and redirect to poodle hybrids. MastCell Talk 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pekeapoo[edit]

Pekeapoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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 WP:N. While poodle hybrids 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 payment of $5 fee, it is not in any way a reliable barometer of notability. VanTucky (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non-notable "breed" and unreferenced article. Only 700 hits on google for the name Pekapoo. Jerazol 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 that other stuff (i.e. Pokemon) exists, 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).
However the notability of peekapoos as a recognized, distinct variation can be easily sourced. Let's start with the dog breed web encyclopedias: [1],[2], and [3]. Next we have no less than the New York Times as a source. [4] Then we have the books, e.g. The Complete Idiots Guide to Designer Dogs [5], 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. See, e.g. [6]. (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. --TheOtherBob 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Wikipedia standard of WP:N, as you can clearly tell from the history of articles such as Cavachon, Boglen, and Bassador. VanTucky (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 Brown-chested Martin, a type of swallow. 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 are 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 Wikipedia for a second, it's more than a little bizarre to say that so many people have taken note of something that we 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. --TheOtherBob 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This idea that confirmed variations in breed/type/subspecies should automatically be notable does not comply with any of the current variations of WP:N 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 widely discredited as a promotional body. The pekeapoo is not a breed 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 suggest notability for a truly notable type such as Labradoodles, 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 Cockeranian, Chug or others. VanTucky (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 WP:N -- 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.") --TheOtherBob 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 significant coverage in reliable sources. VanTucky (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --TheOtherBob 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, when the reliable sources only provide trivial 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. One the sources even fails the requirements of WP:RS. Brandweek, a minor trade publication that reprints press releases and acts as a booster, isn't a reliable source. VanTucky (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 marketing, 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. --TheOtherBob 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. VanTucky (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, they must not have jokes 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 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.) Generally considered 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, [7], and nothing in her article suggests any bias towards or against the subject. Indeed, a quick search at the NY Times shows that they find Brandweek reliable enough to cite [8], 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). --TheOtherBob 03:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 am 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 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. VanTucky (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More