I propose to restore the merger of Gerberian Shepsky back into this list. This recreated article still fails WP:GNG, only one source [1] comes close to providing WP:SIGCOV (addresses the topic directly and in detail) and it’s marginal, the majority of the remaining sources make mere mentions. The FBI dog, whilst interesting, does not establish notability of a common crossbreed, and definitely not by this name.

Further, the above linked source is the only one that uses the portmanteau “Gerberian Shepsky”, the remaining sources only refer the “Husky German Shepherd mixes” or something similar. Cavalryman (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge. The name "Gerberian Shepsky" is not its WP:COMMONNAME, which is shepherd/husky cross from the sources given in the article and what is available online. There is one archived website source with no references that was produced by a Reader's Digest lifestyle writer with no other interest in dogs who appears to have coined the name. Basically, this is a cross-breed and we list cross-breeds, unless these are notable enough to warrant their own article. William Harris (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article uses a range of reliable sources that directly address the suitability of the breed as a therapy dog with examples of where that has happened. Inevitably more sources will emerge over time. It's already been AFD'd and kept, and moved back to the list when it was a much weaker article but recently recreated because someone thought it deserved a stand-alone article. The article is vastly improved in its current form and should be given a chance to develop. The name of the article may be wrong but that is irrelevant to the suitability of the breed for a stand-alone article. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the the single source linked above, please show which sources discuss this crossbreed directly and in detail, and which use this name. I have reviewed every source and they all make single mentions of an example of a cross being used for something, or a certain cross possibly likely having pricked ears, but not any detailed information about this cross. Cavalryman (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't try to undermine the article by adding every maintenance template you can think of. This sort of angry editing is not constructive. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, I have previously raised my concerns about the article's notability on the talk page Talk:Gerberian Shepsky#Notability, this article clearly fails GNG (as stated above) and so has been marked as such. If you can present sources that establish notability I would be more than happy to remove the notability template and withdraw this proposal, but as it stands the sources just do not exist. Including every instance of any shepherd dog crossed with any husky is not constructive as it directly contradicts what the single source says these dogs are. Cavalryman (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Oppose and keep with a name change to 'Shepherd-husky mix' or similar. It would be a shame to lose some of the information. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to changing the name, but it does not address the notability issues. Cavalryman (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate and simplified name "Shepsky" also appears on the internet, with equally dubious reliability of sources. William Harris (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to Philafrenzy & Whispyhistory, surely you both concede there is insufficient information per SIGCOV, it just does not exist. At least by merging the pages this information will be preserved so, when further sources present, there is a good base for an article. Cavalryman (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  @Cavalryman:...Intent was to do something useful. I tried and I can see you tried to help and a textbook source covering the breed is lacking. The several dogs described as shepherd-husky-mix that have been in involved in therapy/search etc seems important to know. Thanks Philafrenzy too. Hopefully the information will be saved somewhere. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Article has survived AfD, so any proposal to merge can be seen as an attempt to re-run that process. Edwardx (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx please review the timeline, the AfD was for multiple pages and closed as no consensus, one of the principle oppose voters at that AfD discussion conducted this merger because they could not establish the page's notability, that still has not been established. Can you present any actual sources about these dogs? I have searched at length and as far as I am aware only one quite weak source exists which I have linked above, that is insufficient for a standalone article. I get the impression from your vote that you are opposing on principle not policy. Cavalryman (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Edwardx refer Straw man. William Harris (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - belongs in mixed-breed dogs. There is no breed standard, and no official documentation or reputable breed registry with historic records of parentage/bloodlines. It is basically dependent on visual ID (which is proven unreliable). I'm surprised it survived AfD. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, none of the oppose votes are grounded in policy, despite repeated requests for a demonstration of notability here, user talk pages and the DYK page none have offered any. Cavalryman (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your opposition seems to be because you do not see sufficient sources that deal with this breed in the abstract. Nonetheless this cross breed is something that exists in the real world with multiple reliable sources testifying to that and discussing how the dogs have been used by their owners, specifically their use as therapy dogs. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy, as stated above there are insufficient sources that provide WP:SIGCOV on these dogs (addresses the topic directly and in detail), fleeting mentions are not close. The standard is very clear. Cavalryman (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge- having reviewed the article, as an uninvolved party, I would say that this dog breed fails to meet notability. Of the sources, most seem to focus more on service dogs rather than the actual (cross)breed, and the one that does sounds unreliable (the Reader's Digest article).--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]