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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkiepoo

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. Also recommending AFD for Maltipoo and Schnoodle . Elf | Talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.Neutral. Elf | Talk 17:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Having seconds thoughts largely based on huge numbers of google hits. But see comments embedded below. Elf | Talk 02:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The sheer number of google hits makes it notable, sure, but if you look at the various web sites that provide information on these dogs, these sources are not credible. Notabity is only one part of the picture, check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources, check out Wikipedia:Verifiability. These sheer numbers doesn't mean anything, because they aren't reliable sources. Tons of ads for puppies? A couple amateurish "breed clubs" web sites.. dogbreedinfo.com. At most the reliable information provided on these designer dogs comes from casual mentions in magazine articles about the current trend with designer dogs - these articles focus on Go to amazon and search for maltipoo. You won't find anything. There are a couple notable exceptions, such as Labradoodle, there is a distinct history. - Trysha ^(talk) 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hybrids of dogs are getting increasingly popular; Many hybrids have qualities that can not be described on any other less specific entry such as the original breeds of the hybrid or a hybrid list page. --Msc44 18:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Promotes misinformation. And Merge anything useful that was left with Poodle hybrids - These dogs are hybrids and do not breed true, you can only guess at the features that such hybrids will have. You won't always get the coat of a poodle, or the temperment of a basset, or the shedding qualities of a westie - you can just HOPE that you get these things. Besides, having an article about each of combonation of breeds will be, how many entries?. Even if all such articles are created, they will not be useful, as they are perpetutating the misinformation that these dogs are actual true beeding lines. - Trysha ^(talk) 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seemed suspicious to me too, but a google search produce 27,800 results, mostly ads for those selling them. I understand User:Trysha's comments, though. Maybe as more breeds are added, some type of definite policy can be formed. But I say keep for now.--Esprit15d 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, you cannot define what a "fooApoo" is. Other than "it will have aspects of a foo, and a poodle, but you really cannot predict which set of aspects". Yes, the ads are out there, but it's all marketing hype. They simply aren't breeds, and if you wanted to have an NPOV article about them, it wouldn't be a "dog breed" format article as these dogs hybrids cannot really be described in any meaningful way - The article would be an article about the marketing success of selling hybrid dogs. More breeds than these have been added, the result of those were all adding redirects to the apropriate hybrids page. That should be done here. - Trysha ^(talk) 22:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think they should all be merged into the poodle hybrids article since the vast majority are mixed with the poodle. I don't agree with adding information about hybrids to the pure bred articles either. Maltmomma ^(chat) 18:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the strongest possible terms. These are never considered dog breeds. I overheard a conversation in a Sydney pet store recently and even the salesgirl was describing a "moodle" as a crossbreed to the sucker--oops--I mean the customer. The sellers of these crosses cannot even agree on what they're called--"moodle"??! The fact that such things rate on Google thanks to ads from sellers cannot be taken seriously.

More importantly, User Msc44 is not correct: there are not significant distinguishing remarks to be made for these crosses, so the result is a proliferation of articles that all say the say basic thing, to wit: this is a cross between a poodle and a .... they have varying appearances blah blah blah, with a photograph.

We would really like Wikiproject dogs to be taken seriously, wouldn't we?

Quill 22:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiability and notability should be the sole criteria, not dog breeding purism. I came here via Maltipoo: 96,900 Google hits, and half a dozen newspaper references to celebrity owners including Jessica Simpson, Ashley Tisdale, Jaime Pressly and AnnaSophia Robb. Tearlach 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately the celebrities that have these mixed breed dogs are doing a disservice to purebred dogs. It's a shame that you can take two different breeds of dogs, breed them and sell them for a disgusting amount of money. What they should be doing if they want a mixed breed dog, or even a purebred dog for that matter, is to go to the pound. That would help stop BYBer's and puppy millers from making a buck off of this "newest fad." JMO Maltmomma ^(chat) 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with you - but it's not the job of an encyclopedia to make a moral judgment. Tearlach 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I just find myself climbing my soapbox when I hear about celebrities touting the latest fad. I apologize. Maltmomma ^(chat) 02:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't care a whit about whether dogs are purebred or not. Most of my smart, talented, beautiful dogs have been mixed breeds. But I'm not trying to create articles on Wikipedia about Semidachshunds, Craussies, Labrasheps, or Golden Shepherds. I must admit, though, having started this thing months ago and having promoted it, too (not doing articles on random mixed breeds), I think I am starting to be swayed by the preponderance of Internet occurrences. I'm just still not entirely convinced that one can legitimately say anything other than "it might...or might not...be like its parent breeds." And I'm not quite sure where one draws the line on "worth having an article for"--100 internet occurrences? 1000? Mumbling off into the night... Elf | Talk 05:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Trysha's comments about hybrids not breeding true -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Trysha -- Krash 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Poodle mixes are distinctive and usually cost a lot of money!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 134.253.26.10 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. As others have previously said, notability is the only factor that should be considered. The schnoodle breed, for one, is notable, having been featured in publications such as Time magazine. As for allegations that the article implies that poodle crosses are true breeds, fix it! The fact that an article has incorrect information in it is not grounds for deleting the whole thing. -Vontafeijos 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the problem is not that the article has incorrect infromation, the problem is that the article CANNOT have accruate infromation because - there is no way to define what one of these dogs will look like. Any article that says these dogs have "attribute x from one parent and attribute y from another" is pushing a POV. These dogs are a roll of the dice, unless you get breeders specifically breeding for traits. - Trysha ^(talk) 03:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: And yet the Labradoodle, Goldendoodle, and Cockapoo articles are not being considered for deletion because they are notable enough. Those are also dog breed crosses, a "roll of the dice," but we are keeping them because they are "so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list." If we're keeping those because they are notable, who defines which poodle crosses are notable and which are not?

Also, the article can easily have accurate information by describing what most poodle crosses inherit from each parent, and where there can be variations. If there is enough variation between breeds for people to seek out specific poodle crosses, then there must be enough variation to explore in a Wikipedia article. -Vontafeijos 04:19, 20 January 2006 (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.