- 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 redirect to List of dog hybrids. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ShiChi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
Made up dog breed. Several deletion precedents for similar "designer dog" pages Rootsie (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP 'There is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page. '--From Wikipedia's "What Wikipedia Is Not" section. Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia.
I would like to improve this page and of course, and would prefer not to remove it. Therefore, I humbly request your help to better this page and make it a coherent and viable article.
As far as the comment about an "infinite number of names for crosses": There are not an infinite number of crosses. There are not really a "nearly infinite" number of crosses unless one's definition of "nearly infinite" is somewhere close to 50. Simply because there are many of a type of things does not mean lumping them all together into one instead of defining each is the best way to understand them. There are several "varieties" of humans, yet we bother to distinguish between Canadian, American, and Hispanic, though you can find all of them on one continent, and they are all one species. Even within American, we distinguish between New Yorker and Californian and Texan, because the backgrounds and sometimes the thought processes and behaviors and even the way people look due to the way they dress, is different. Even amongst people in one state, there are other classification systems in place based on a whole plethora of information. These classification systems give us some information about the individual at hand. I believe that information about something is good, as long as the information is reliable; I think that ShiChi is a useful classification because the health and personality issues associated with ShiChis come from their Shih-Tzu and Chihuahuan parents, and that their particular quirks are rather different from say, a Labrador x Poodle crossbred's.
While it may become more cumbersome to figure out a ShiChi x Maltipoo, there are certain names to the offspring of purebreds. Maltese x Poodle = Maltipoo, for example, not "Pootese". Similar rules apply with the naming of other purebred x purebred dogs.
On verification of the name for this particular type of cross...A ShiChi is a crossbreed and it exists and is recognized by the International Designer Canine Registry http://www.designercanineregistry.com I'm not entirely sure what you would like as evidence? There are PureX, PureY, but when you mix the two, you no longer have PureX or PureY and so it cannot be called either anymore, but a XYMix. If it is traditionally called an XYMix and you even managed to find it listed as XYMix in a book, then is XYMix not sufficient? An XYMix is still different from an ABMix in phenotype and historical origin.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Crossbreed
ShiChis are not a "madeup dog breed." It is a term to further specify within the general group of "dog." If you are going by a biological definition only, the purebred dogs are not a different species from any other dogs; they can still mate and produce viable offspring with any other type of dog; therefore they are one species. The "breeds" of dogs that people classify things as are just that; classification. Even within "purebred" there are "standard" and "toy" poodles, because the classification system is trying to describe something. The same with the classification of designer dogs; a Maltipoo looks very different from a Snorkie and behaves quite differently.
I will try to shorten and clean up the article, but I need suggestions on what parts to clear up. I would like help and ideas on how to improve this article.
None of this is original research in that I did not synthesize ideas that were not already in books or on AKC sites or other official websites. The only "original" thing is possibly the interviews, but those I still have notes on and can give you the word for word responses if you'd like, along with the questions. I just didn't add those as attachments because I'm not sure how to tack on notebook paper attachments or where I'd put them exactly.
If what you mean is I need to specify which reference source gave which piece of information, I haven't done that yet because I don't really know how to make the little numbered buttons appear. I don't know what the tiny number things are called, so am not sure how to look it up to make it right.
On notability of the crossbreed: If it was on the list of hybrids, why is it not notable? This crossbreed is unlikely to disappear because it is the F1 generation of two very old lines, and as long as those two breeds exist, it is likely that there will continue to be ShiChis in the future. So, this information is not just a passing thing.
Oh! Also, I am the article's starter? (was told to put this somewhere but not sure where)
Kelidimari Talk♂
- Keep. This article simply needs to be revised for content. There is valuable and pertinent information contained within.Garyjwu (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)— Garyjwu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I recently adopted a ShiChi puppy. This article was very helpful in understanding this specific breed as I begin to nurture and care for my puppy. Renizenz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC). — Renizenz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete or redirect. I very much regret the vote, since the article's creator obviously put a lot of work into it and tried hard to do everything right with respect to Wikipedia's polices. It's a strong attempt coming from someone with limited experience in article creation. Unfortunately, the cross fails to meet Wikipedia's rather exacting notability standards: I searched multiple proprietary databases (GeneralOneFile, ProQuest, etc.) that collectively reference over 100,000,000 mostly offline articles from magazines, newspaper, etc. and found not even a single reference to this named cross, despite using several different search strings to do so. I think, in this case, that we have no choice but to congratulate the author on a very fine effort, hope the experience won't discourage her (him?) from creating more articles in the future, and suggest that she carefully review notability and reliable source standards before choosing another topic for an article. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think google is one of the largest or most commonly used search engines out there?...If you go to google.com and type in "shichi" you will obtain approximately 804,000 results. How is it not notable at all if there are that many sites on it? Puggles are similar, with about 500,000 results. "Dalmation" pulls up about 830,000. I read over the section about notability, but do not see why a breed is not notable when it is not something that will vanish anytime soon, and when there are quite a lot of results for the breed on google. I'm not sure what a propretary database is, nor have I heard of GeneralOneFile or ProQuest. So, I'm not sure what to make of it when you tell me that you can't find information on ShiChi on those.Kelidimari (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I understand what you're saying, Kelidimari, although I note that if you perform a google search that excludes words like "t-shirt", "for sale", "cafepress", "zazzle", (to exclude coffee mugs and such for sale, and the numerous puppy breeders who are offering the dogs) and "Japan" (it's evidently a prominent family name or something in Japan), etc. that you'll find you get around 4,000 hits, and that only the first five or six pages of those results relate to the dog. Further, the remaining hits that do apply to the dog are almost all things like blog comments about someone's pet, which aren't admissable on Wikipedia to establish notability.
- What's needed are articles in which the ShiChi cross is the primary subject, published by independent, well-established news/media/publishing outlets that meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. I repeat that I'm sorry about it, but whether the breed is popular has no bearing at all on its notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. That popularity has to translate into articles from reliable sources on the breed. Finally, the proprietary databases I mentioned above are fee-based indexes that have been created by private companies of pretty much every newspaper or magazine article that's been written in English, sometimes going back 50 or more years, but more typically 20 or so years. Reference librarians use them all the time and ( if you have a library card for any large public or University library system) you can probably access them yourself, at no charge, starting from your library's web pages.
- Wikipedia's admittedly rather exacting definition of what constitutes "notability", and the principle that notability only derives from a particular kind of media source trips up almost all first attempts to create an article. It's the main reason that the great majority of first-attempt articles end up being deleted, eventually. I'm sorry your article got caught up in that very common misunderstanding; it's not your fault, of course, i.e. it's natural to think that something that's reasonably popular would be "notable", but that's just not so with respect to Wikipedia. I'll not reply further here, since it's not the best place for such an extended discussion, but I'd be glad to briefly point you to more info if you post a query on your talk page, where I've already posted a related comment. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure what people are asking for, I guess. Are you asking for something that is in say, a journal, a book, something that could go into a research paper, which states what?... That ShiChis are a breed? There will not be that, because they are not a breed, nor am I claiming that they are a breed. Or, is it that you're asking I find something that is published that includes ShiChis? What if it is intermingled with other puppies? Is that ok? And if so, how many sources do you need that list ShiChis explicitly? I'm just not entirely sure what it is you are asking for, and also I do not believe there are many books that cover non-pure-breds to begin with, because purebreds are the more easily identifiable. Kelidimari (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some links that will help you over time with editing Wikipedia. This article breaks most/all of these policies:
- WP:Verify, WP:Reliable Sources, WP:Original Research, WP:External Links, WP:Notability, WP:Notamanual
- Before writing an article, you'll find it helpful to read WP:Your first article.
- You'll find that the responsibility is mostly on you to learn Wikipedia policies, though most editors are happy to answer specific questions once someone has familiarized themselves with those policies. I also think that this article reads more like a how-to or a blog post. I suggest that you copy and paste it to your computer - that way if it's deleted here, you can make it into a blog post. You've obviously worked hard on it, and if you posted it as a blog somewhere, then you could still point other ShiChi fans to it. First Light (talk) 15:19, 3 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.