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. Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puggle[edit]

Puggle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete Not a real dog breed. There are several precedents for removing portmanteau named designer dogs Rootsie (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has independent referencing specifically regarding the breed. Miyagawa (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This has been nominated before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puggle (dog). Station1 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Dog Hybrid This is not a dog breed, just another "designer dog" cross of which there are hundreds. The sources listed are just about the designer dog fad and not about anything notable as it pertains to the "Puggle" cross. Thanks. 64.5.236.254 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Notability is firmly established by the sources in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Puggles" are no different than any other "designer" dog crossbred. If this article stays it will set a precedent for articles on every cross someone can think up. Also sources and references are not notable, just links to personal sites and articles on designer dog fad. FBGA (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at the Google News results at the top of this AfD. You will see many reliable sources. Look in my contribs, and you will see that I just notvoted to delete the article on the ShiChi. Abductive (reasoning) 08:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Either let all the possible dog crosses have pages, or direct non-breeds to dog-hybrids. This should be a policy or there's going to be a debate every time someone adds a page for a boggle, shitz-poo, bordrador, or other concocted name. And I checked the sources. They're barely relevant. Just a vanity page and some magazine or news articles about fancy cross-breds. Merci, Michline 78.155.144.174 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Dog Hybrid/Crossbreed or to List of Dog Hybrids I read the article. Full of unsubstantiated claims about appearance and behavior of this cross. Like a mixed breed, a crossbreed dog is not in any way predictable in appearance or behavior. It could be like one parent or the other or any where in between. And someone's home made "Puggle" fan page doen't seem to be much of a source to me. JoKing (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not cleanup. Poor sourcing in the article is irrelevant, since there are 664 Google News hits, several whole books on Puggles [1], [2], [3], and this entry in Puppies for Dummies. Abductive (reasoning) 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Google searches do not meet guidelines for notability. Nor do any of the other sources any more than any other designer cross. This really should just be an entry under "List of dog hybrids" like all the other trendy crosses. JoKing (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any topic that has entire books written about it is a topic worthy of an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Miyagawa Coaster1983 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with "List of Dog Hybrids" This is not a breed of canine. If you keep this page it will encourage lots more like it on crossed dogs. There is already a page for "hybrid" cross dogs that are not breeds of dog. Why not compromise and put the info on this "puggle" pug cross on that page, with the other crossbreeds like it such as the pugapoo and pugalier? Mercedes Cordoba (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The only acceptable compromise is to delete or redirect those articles on crossbreeds without treatment by secondary sources, and to keep articles on crossbreeds that do have secondary sources. Remove the words "on crossbreeds" from that statement and you have WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked the mentioned page. There's been a number of articles on these made up crossbreeds already merged into List of Dog Hybrids - Beaglier for example. Also checked the sources on Puggle and WP:NTEMP in my estimation. JoKing (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

I think that defining things is helpful. Primary colors are wonderful, but I also like orange, green, purple, indigo, and everything inbetween. I don't mind that there are additional names to learn for things like "sugar pink" or "sienna" or "violet" or whatnot...I think they're fine, and unique, and I believe that the more bits and pieces of information one can obtain about something, the more we understand it. For example, getting information on a piece of fruit is great, but knowing that the fruit is an apple is better, and knowing that it is a fuji apple is even better than knowing just "apple" or just "fruit" ...and knowing that it is a fuji apple picked towards the beginning of the season vs. the end is even more helpful....yes, I realize it is just an apple and that perhaps only one out of ten people will care what type it is. However, I think that it's still useful information for those who care. For those that don't, well the info is there, you don't have to read it if you think an apple is just an apple. I just happen to believe that Granny Smiths are good for baking, and Fujis are good for eating straight up, so on so forth. "Just another designer dog" by the way, is a little mean. "Purebred" dogs are not better than "designer dogs" or "mutts." Even "mutts" and "designer dogs" can be sweet and awesome and very loyal. Tacking on the "just" at the start makes it sound so elitist.

Rather than all the spam across all of the "just another designer dog" pages, can this issue first be settled OUTSIDE of the pages, and then the final decision applied? Right now it seems a little like a spam war and is taking a lot of time, and all of the same issues and same people are appearing, it's just a very fragmented sort of battle. It should instead, be in a single forum, and be a little more cordial if at all possible. Otherwise, it is quite disheartening to people who are trying to contribute too you know? We care about dogs as much as you do, or we wouldn't be here either... Same boat, we just gotta figure out the course....play nice? Thanks. Kelidimari (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into 'List of dog hybrids' or delete There is already a place for these types of dog crosses on Wikipedia. If you follow the debate on the dog pages, you'll see it was created for the very reason that people were creating endless pages on "designer dog" mixes. Do we really want articles on the Papshund, Pechi, Perroenano, Chigi, Corghuahua, Pomimo, PomChi, Porki, Pugador, Pugairn, Dogueador, Pugese, Pugzu, Schweenie, Schnug, Shichon, Zuchon, ShihApso, Schnautzu, Boodle, JackSchitz, and every kind of something-poo you can think of? Oh, and the fact that some quickie press has published a book doesn't make a subject legitimate or anything other than a fad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.5.236.254 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The following sources aren't exactly quickie presses: Chicago Tribune[4] ; Fox News[5] ; The Telegraph[6] ; Newsday[7] ; The New York Times[8] all have articles entirely about this hybrid. The NY Times article seems to put a lie to much of the Puggle article, talking about "Puggle fatigue", "Huggable, but only for awhile", "medical problems", "neurological diseases", "takes all the fun out of owning a dog", "the dark side of puggle ownership", etc., so the article might need some balance. First Light (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Surprise (for me) - this one has several reliable sources that show distinct notability. First Light (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Strong delete. Either all crosses should get a page, or they should be redirected to a single page, as the above poster mentioned. Other wise this debate is going to go on and on and on for every cross there is. But if you do decide to keep the "Puggle" page, let me know. I want to make Wiki pages for my two dogs. They used to be mutts, but now I've decided one's a Bossiepoo and the other's a Shnoodelier. 187.1.10.14 (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly merged Kelidimari, are you on meds? Anyway, this isn't a dog issue. It's a validity issue. There are only a few sources and they're just internet articles on why "designer" pups are a trend, no real support there. Thank-you. Mischa 203.148.84.26 (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2010 (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.