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 of the debate was keep. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggle (dog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderjack. Might be just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name (written by Elf)

I am having more concerns over time as some of these articles keep reappearing (I believe that this one was deleted as a stub a couple of times as a bogus name), as you can see there's a lot of info in this article. I added some of it. It seems to me that we might be better off leaving some of the more common ones, which this seems to be, with all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get. The other issue is that it's going to keep reappearing (as I said, I believe it was deleted a couple of times and turned into a redirect to dog hybrids and crossbreeds, but it just kept getting recreated as an article.)

So if this seems inside out, I'm listing it because we've been trying to keep these invented combined-breed-name mixed breed dogs out, and I think this will come up for deletion eventually if I don't nom it, but in fact the names ARE being used and the dogs ARE being sold and people WILL come looking for the name. -Elf | Talk 00:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above. Elf | Talk 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep. Term regularly used by established news media. Monicasdude 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous AfDs. At worst, redirect. -- Krash (Talk) 03:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we're going to have a page about any dog breed, we might as well allow pages on all. Deleting pages for "mixed" breeds is arbitrary. Andrewdoane 11:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Andrewdoane. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The whole point of wikipedia is to promote the sharing of info, not limit it to what purists think it should be! Let there be diversity of opinion on contested issues, so long as both sides of debate are clear. Chrisv11
• Keep per Elf and Monicasdude. WarpFlyght 03:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Some mixed breeds become notable and this is one of them. -Big Smooth 19:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a trend, should we compile all trends as they happen? It's a waste to have it's own article, why not merge information on crossbreeds into the parent breed article? Besides, this article isn't really that informative other than describing it could be -like a beagle, maybe, but like a pug if it's like that or inherient of a beagle-. No real information is here, or concrete for that matter as it flip flops on traits of the parent breeds. Until an article can be written that's more than a mishmash of personal experiance (POV BTW) with the animal there's no point in having it.--Skeev 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I may impartial because I own a puggle, but the article is informative and needs to be kept. The term Puggle is part of popular culture and shouldn't be ignored even if its not a recognized breed. The article should have more facts which I will try to work on.sav127 12:31, 30 April 2007

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.