Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaglier

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus I'm closing this as a procedural non-consensus. I would have done so much earlier had I sen this afd. It seems from the discussion and the sources available that the individual articles must be disccused separately--the evidence for notability seems strogner for some than for others, but I have no particular opinion of my own about any of them. I point out that according to [[WP:GNG, the existence of sources that meet the notability requirement does not necessarily mean there should be individual articles--a combination article can be a practical solution--such a combination article can be much more extensive than a mere list. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beaglier[edit]

Beaglier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cavoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cockapoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goldador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Goldendoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mal-shi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maltipoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Morkie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pekapoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Puggle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Schnoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sheepadoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shih-poo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yorkipoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zuchon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jackabee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — later addition Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gerberian Shepsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — later addition again Cavalryman (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of these designer dog crossbreeds fail GNG. A couple of them are mentioned specifically in the 2007 New York Times Magazine story "The Modern Kennel Conundrum", but a mere acknowledgement that some F1 & F2 crossbred dogs are marketed under a portmanteau does not confer notability. Google shows up the usual "owners guides" and "complete owners manuals" from the same authors that pump out identical books retitled for every designer crossbreed imaginable. Cavalryman (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Don't know about the other dogs, but Goldendoodle gets 58 million hits on Google. I would think that constitutes "significant coverage" per GNG. MartinezMD (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of unattributable information on all of the above, but sheer weight of non-RS Google hits does not constitute GNG. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Pretty much all of these are poorly written and serve as outlets for people to dump their pet pictures, but I'm unsure if that would be another reason for deletion. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the trend, I want my dog on Wikipedia, I will create an article from hot air about it. Cavalryman (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete them all. Else, mention on list of cross-breeds. More of the possible 100,000 combinations that can be made with crossings from the 450+ FCI breeds. Be aware that many of these articles were started as a monument to somebody's dog that has passed away, with photos taken of that dog and placed in the articles, forever. William Harristalk 06:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per William Harris. Many, many possible crossbreeds. I thought Goldendoodle might be salvagable, but not with what I could find on Google, Google News, and Google scholar. For instance, Goldendoodle has many citations, but most are to either primary sources or sources of dubious quality (Kurt Vonnegut's personal letters as a source of information about dogs?). If one of these crossbreeds does become a well-documented breed, no prejudice against recreation. Hog Farm (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I just tagged Gerberian Shepsky for copyvio deletion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just when we thought that citing "thehappypuppysite.com" as a reliable source was bad enough....... William Harristalk 21:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Cavalryman (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I added it back to the list above (removed strikethrough) since the violating content was removed. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. List of dog crossbreeds provides sufficient information. I wasn't able to find good sources for significant coverage of the individual combos. The general concept of "designer crossbreeds" is notable, but it doesn't appear that any specific crossbreed is. (And Cavalryman, sorry for not cleaning up thoroughly when I removed the strikethrough, but fortunately you caught it - thanks) Schazjmd (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, thank you for the updates. I agree fully, the broader subject is notable, and the list when reliably sourced contains the main crosses. Cavalryman (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete all except Cockapoo, Goldendoodle, and Goldador, those three have had a lot more reliable sourcing and warrant individual scrutiny at AFD, at the very least - the rest are lacking in sufficient evidence of general notability. Fish+Karate 10:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep, as a bundle of 10+ afds will require at least a couple of hours to carry out even a perfunctory search for possible sources ie. 1st 5 pages of gsearch, and did the nominator even consider redirects to List of dog crossbreeds as likely wikireader search terms? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong procedural keep all per Coolabahapple. Some of these are likely to be notable enough for their own pages, some are not. This can't be put through with a lazyunwise mass-nomination. Bookscale (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no wish to impugn the two procedural keep !voters, but implicit in your comments is a presumption of bad faith in assuming due diligence has not be followed by me as nominator and those who have !voted delete (I take issue with the use of the word of lazy). Can you produce any RS to support the retention of any of the above? I have searched everywhere I know and cannot, to my surprise in some cases. The same due diligence would be applicable to seventeen separate nominations as is required (and has been carried out) in this joint nomination. Cavalryman (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment - I don't have to produce reliable sources to support any of them - I'm saying the mass-nomination of multiple pages shouldn't have been done and the AfD should be closed on that procedural basis - I'm not arguing necessarily that any individual page is notable or not, just that the nomination is improper. You say you haven't found any sources - have you been to a university library and tried proper veterinary textbooks and the like that would discuss this sort of thing - that is much more likely to be where any reliable sources on dog breeds are to be found, rather than Google searching (for example). Bookscale (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've withdrawn the word "lazy", and said it was unwise. Bookscale (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that sufficient coverage provided by List of dog crossbreeds. Teraplane (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - WP should not be used as a promotional tool for "designers" and "wannabe breeds" that haven't met the minimum breed standards of notable breed registries and kennel clubs that keep track of parentage, conduct DNA testing, and can provide verifiability. I do have some reservations about the Cockapoo, not as a breed but as it relates to popularity...but then, famous doesn't qualify for a WP article on its own, and without a reputable breed registry keeping track of parentage and being able to verify that it's a purebred...well, WP may be unknowingly helping puppy mills and other types of scams by giving encyclopedic recognition to a breed that neither exists nor is verifiable. Atsme Talk 📧 21:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so I just looked at Maltipoo as I had a friend who had one. The article itself may not be the best sourced - are those dog sources reliable, especially petbreeds.com and dogtime.com? A news search for Maltipoo brought up heaps of articles as well, and there have been books written which specifically discuss the breed. Perhaps they're self-published, perhaps it's truly not notable, but I have some extreme reservations about deleting all of these at once given the amount of hits that come up. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick example of why WP should not be used as a marketing/promotional tool for designer crosses - cruel, not cute. This is the Maltipoo club and registry. Spend a bit of time reviewing the site and compare it to the reputable AKC or KC sites. Sadly, puppy mills are everywhere - it's the quackery and fringe of dog breeding. They sell on Craigs List, and all over the internet where scams run rampant. Atsme Talk 📧 03:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, how is our current Multipoo article at all promotional? I did see some news articles such as this which show you're correct, but I don't know why they wouldn't be added to the article instead of using it as grounds for deletion to help present a NPOV. I also did not come across the Tripod article as a potential source in my search. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question, SF. If you get a chance, see User:Atsme/sandbox. I think it addresses your question. Please feel free to contribute your ideas on the TP of that draft. Atsme Talk 📧 11:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Beaglier, Cavoodle, Cockapoo, Goldador, Goldendoodle, Mal-shi, and Maltipoo.

    I am taking no position for now on the remaining articles because I have not searched for sources for them. I commented below the relist about the 10 remaining articles. Modified by Cunard (talk) at 10:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    I am first presenting only the reliable sources for each topic. I then present the reliable sources with quotes.

    For Beaglier:
    1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 13: The Beagalier". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 104–109. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    For Cavoodle:
    1. Hale, Rachael (2008). Dogs: 101 Adorable Breeds. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7407-7342-6. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. "Top 8 dog breeds for allergy sufferers". Better Homes and Gardens. 2018-01-28. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    3. Moulton, Emily; Parri, Linda (2011-10-02). "Cavoodles of love". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    For Cockapoo:
    1. Foley, Mary D. (2012). Cockapoo. Freehold: I-5 Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59378-713-4. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. Owen, Ruth (2013). Cockapoos. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4488-7855-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    3. Fogle, Bruce (2000) [1995]. The New Encyclopedia of The Dog (2 ed.). New York: DK. p. 383. ISBN 0-7894-6130-7. Retrieved 2019-12-14.
    For Goldador:
    1. Owen, Ruth (2015). Goldadors. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4777-7039-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 2: The Goldador". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 30–35. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    For Goldendoodle:
    1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 5: The Goldendoodle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 52–59. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 605. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    For Mal-shi:
    1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 11: The Maltese Shih Tzu". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 92–97. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    For Maltipoo:
    1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 10: The Maltepo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 86–91. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    2. Pickeral, Tamsin (2014). Unleashed. San Diego: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-62686-273-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
    3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.



    • Keep Beaglier. Here are sources about the subject:
      1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 13: The Beagalier". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 104–109. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        The Beagalier

        Name variations: Beaglier

        The Beagalier is a dog with lots of character and energy. It also has the attractive features of the two parent breeds, the Beagle and the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Bred for health and good temperament, the Beagalier is steadily acquiring a following.

        History of the Beagalier

        The Beagalier became particularly popular through crossbreeding programs in Australia during the 1990s and is still one of the crosses produced by major breeders. Apart from capitalizing on the existing affection for the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and the Beagle parent breeds, the breeders were looking for a healthy, energetic small dog with a less active scent drive than that of the Beagle.

        The book provides six pages of coverage about the Beagalier.
      2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 602. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        Beagalier

        History/Evolution: A cross between a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and a Beagle, the Beagalier was first bred in Australi in the 1990s, focused on reducing the Beagle's scent-hunting drive and wandering tendencies. The crossbreed may have a positive effect on health problems associated with the Cavalier, including heart conditions and other issues related to the shortened face. The typical Beagalier has a good temperament and resembles both parent breeds.

        The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.
    • Keep Cavoodle. Here are sources about the subject:
      1. Hale, Rachael (2008). Dogs: 101 Adorable Breeds. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7407-7342-6. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        92. Cavoodle

        Originating in Australia, the Cavoodle is a cross of pure Miniature or Toy Poodle with the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, producing a smaller version of the Cockapoo or Spoodle. The affectionate and sweet disposition of the Cavalier King Charles beautifully complements the Toy Poodle's qualities of extreme intelligence and loyalty. Bred as companion dogs, the Cavalier's laid-back and sociable qualities combined with those of the easily trained and responsive Poodle make the Cavoodle exceptionally well suited to family life. The cross has also seen the development of a healthier breed, with many of the genetic problems of the original breeds being greatly reduced. Easy to care for and extremely tolerant and gentle with children, these modern dogs are growing in popularity.

        The book then discusses the breed's appearance and color.
      2. "Top 8 dog breeds for allergy sufferers". Better Homes and Gardens. 2018-01-28. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The article notes:

        8. Cavoodle

        The Cavapoo or Cavoodle is a hypoallergenic dog breed that hardly sheds or drools. They are a cross between a miniature or toy poodle and a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.

        In Australia in the late 1990s, this breed became highly popular with crossbreeding programs.

        They are even-tempered with Toy Cavoodles growing to between 28cm to 35cm at the shoulder as adults.

        Mini Cavoodles will grow to between 33cm to 45cm at the shoulder as adults.

        Note: While the breeds in this collection tend to be more allergy-friendly, no dog can be guaranteed not to cause any allergic reaction and individual pets will vary. Do not stop taking allergy medicine without speaking to your doctor.

      3. Moulton, Emily; Parri, Linda (2011-10-02). "Cavoodles of love". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2019-12-10. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The article notes:

        IT'S called the cavoodle and it's about to become the most publicised dog breed in the nation, despite the price tag.

        The breed, a cavalier King Charles spaniel crossed with a miniature poodle, is tipped to soar in popularity after Prime Minister Julia Gillard revealed she would be a proud owner.

        The animal was a birthday gift from her partner, Tim Mathieson, and the PM will take delivery of her cavoodle puppy in just over a month.

    • Keep Cockapoo. Here are sources about the subject:
      1. Foley, Mary D. (2012). Cockapoo. Freehold: I-5 Publishing. ISBN 978-1-59378-713-4. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
      2. Owen, Ruth (2013). Cockapoos. New York: Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4488-7855-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.
      3. Fogle, Bruce (2000) [1995]. The New Encyclopedia of The Dog (2 ed.). New York: DK. p. 383. ISBN 0-7894-6130-7. Retrieved 2019-12-14.

        The book notes:

        The Cockerpooo — a cross between the American Cocker Spaniel and the Miniature Poodle — is growing in popularity. Like other breeds, the first dogs were the result of unplanned matings, but more recently, as numbers have increased, matings between Cockerpoos have become planned. The Poodle is evident, both in the face and coat texture, and in the personality of this new "breed." Like the Poodle, the Cockerpoo is an intent observer, not given to the hyperactive excesses of many American Cocker Spaniels. An added bonus is that the Cockerpoo has a much lower incidence of skin problems than the American Cocker.

    • Keep Goldendoodle. Here are sources about the subject:
      1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 5: The Goldendoodle". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 52–59. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book provides eight pages of coverage about the Goldendoodle.

      2. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 605. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        Goldendoodle

        History/Evolution:

        The Goldendoodle is a relatively new mix, a cross between the Poodle and the Golden Retriever. Like the Labradoodle, the Goldendoodle may inherit the Poodle's low-shedding, low-dander coat. Bred in different sizes, depending on the size of Poodle, the Goldendoodle is a larger alternative to the Cockapoo. The cross is the product of two intelligent breeds and is an able working dog, serving as a guide dog, sniffer, and therapy dog.

        The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.
    • Keep Mal-shi. Here are sources about the subject:
      1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 11: The Maltese Shih Tzu". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 92–97. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book provides six pages of coverage about the Mal-shi.

      2. Hall, Derek (2016). The Ultimate Guide To Dog Breeds: A Useful Means of Identifying the Dog Breeds of the World and how to Care for Them. New York: Chartwell Books. p. 428. ISBN 978-0-7858-3441-0. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        Mal-Shi

        The Mal-Shi, also known as a Malti Tzu is hybrid created by crossing a purebred Maltese with a purebred Shih Tzu. Like most hybrids, they are not recognized by any major kennel club, but are becoming increasingly more popular and quite sought-after. The Mal-Shi has the characteristics of both breeds, often with the coloring of the Shih Tzu and the fluffy coat of the Maltese. They are playful little dogs, great with children, and energetic in nature. They are confident and loyal and like to make new acquaintances, both canine and human.

        The Mal-Shi owner must be committed to grooming their dog regularly, even twice a day in some cases, for its fluffy coat can become easily matted if neglected. However, there are advantages, as the Mal-Shi's coat is low-shedding making it a popular choice for those who may have allergies.

      3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        Maltese Shih Tzu

        History/Evolution: A cross of two low-shedding, low-dander dogs — the Maltese and the Shih Tzu — the Maltese Shih Tzu was developed in Australia in the 1990s. Also known as the Mal-Shi or Malt-Tzu, this small crossbreed may be a good choice for people with allergies; the cross may also avoid the eye and breathing problems associated with the Shih Tzu's flattened face. With enough exercise, the Maltese Shih Tzu is content in an apartment situation.

        The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.
    • Keep Maltipoo. Here are sources about the subject:
      1. Woolf, Norma Bennet (2007). "Chapter 10: The Maltepo". Hot Dogs: Fourteen of the Top Designer Dogs. Hauppauge, New York: B.E.S. Publishing. pp. 86–91. ISBN 978-0-7641-3512-5. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book provides six pages of coverage about the Mal-shi.

      2. Pickeral, Tamsin (2014). Unleashed. San Diego: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-62686-273-9. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        The adorable Maltipoo is a cross between a Maltese and a Toy or Miniature Poodle, and is an ideal companion for families who want to devote themselves to their dogs. The Maltipoo likes nothing better than being at the center of attention, and will settle for nothing less. These little, fluffy dogs are not happy being left alone and will bark. Sometimes Maltipoos take time to accept strangers, and can be aloof, but they are devoted and affectionate to people they know and trust. Similarly, they do not always accept other dogs at first, and time should be taken to properly socialize them. Despite their small size, Maltipoos like to get out and about and enjoy a good walk and a lively play session.

      3. Adamson, Eve; Beauchamp, Richard G.; Bonham, Margaret H.; Coren, Stanley; Fields-Babineau, Miriam; Hodgson, Sarah; Isbell, Connie; McCullough, Susan; Spadafori, Gina; Volhard, Wendy; Walkowicz, Chris; Zink, M. Christine (2010). Dogs All-in-One For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 606. ISBN 978-0-470-52978-2. Retrieved 2019-12-10.

        The book notes:

        Maltepo

        History/Evolution: The Maltepoo (or Maltipoo or Moodle), a cross between the Maltese and the Poodle, adorns the arm of more than a few celebrities. The Maltepoo may inherit the low-shedding, low-dander coat of the Poodle, making the cross attractive for people with allergies. The diminutive dog can be a successful therapy dog, especially with the elderly. Responsible breeders are alert to health issues such as endocrine disorders, skin diseases, and eye disorders.

        The book then discusses the breed's size, color, temperament, energy level, best owner, needs, and life expectancy.


    Cunard (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep Let’s only nominate only one article at a time in AfD. Samboy (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally this would be close to a delete consensus, but the last few comments have brought up new information that needs to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in general. WP:NEOLOGISM is the relevent policy requiring significant sustained useage, and I agree with what appears to be the current consensus that List of dog crossbreeds handles these generally non-notable cross-breeds fine. Cunard's listings above don't really convince me otherwise on those areas. As Fish+Karate said though, I do think Cockapoo, Goldendoodle, and Goldador could warrant having their own individual AfD instead (with no prejudice against the filer for filing these as all one). Those might be more likely to be redirects instead (e.g., golden lab already redirects to Labrador Retriever, and using goldador tries to bypass that, but individual AfD is the best place for that kind of focused cleanup. Overall though, encyclopedic articles would be sticking to mostly recognized breeds as one standard. Simply doing a cross and making up a name and having a few sources that are fairly indiscriminate WP:NOTCATALOGUE, does not meet notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - not trying to be critical of your comment, but just wanted to note that AfD is not the place to clean up articles. AfD is for articles that don't meet notability standards. Bookscale (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a common mistake when people don't differentiate AfD itself and the deletion option. AfD can be a place for such cleanup. For deletion though, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP is true. That other shortcut link there saying AfD itself isn't for cleanup is a misnomer that often confuses people. There are plenty of other options at AfD besides just keep or delete. That's why we have options such as merge, redirect, transwikify, etc. at AfDs for cleaning up issues that fall outside of just the notability question such as redundancy or already being covered appropriately elswhere. There's a lot of cleanup being discussed here related to article titles and deletion, and that's a core part of AfD when questions of notability and layout come up but deletion isn't the best option. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NEOLOGISM says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)." WP:NEOLOGISM does not apply to 13 of the dog breeds nominated for deletion because there are reliable secondary sources about the term and concept. A number of those dog breeds even have entire chapters or entire books written about them. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't cherry-pick just that and have to go by the spirit of that essay too. Remember that we're still lacking significant secondary coverage of those new compounds that NEOLOGISM describes. That higher-tier sources such as the AKC and other naming organizations aren't formally recognizing the names is a huge red flag on the neologism front. With such a disparity (i.e, WP:DUE, it doesn't really matter if someone can find a handful of books or a chapter. If a cross-breed isn't formally recognized, there's already a framework in articles of current breeds (or the list article) for discussing cross-bred traits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already voted keep all on procedural grounds because the amount of source material required to properly evaluate all of these articles is ridiculously large, but I'd also be now inclined to support and keep the articles where Cunard has very helpfully found sources, for the reasons suggested. Bookscale (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just an IP, so my vote wouldn't matter in any case... But I want to point out that a lot of people are referring to "recognized breeds" in terms of kennel clubs, so you're basically saying Wikipedia should endorse these private orgs definition of breeds. Many classic working breeds (such as border collies) resisted joining kennel clubs such as the AKC for 50+ years because breeding for show and meeting appearance-based "breed standards" has a notable and measurable reduction in health. The Jack Russell Terrier is an example of a breed that STILL resists joining a major "established kennel club", for this very reason (they have their own breeding association). Other things to consider is that, for example, there is a Goldendoodle breeding association of North America. I'm just wary of the arguments that there are "official" breeds or "official" clubs. Arguments should be made about notability or not, rather than which specific organization endorses which specific types of dogs. Focus on notability. Another side note, but Guide Dogs of America uses Goldadors extensively, which is notable in of itself. I'm not providing sources, as I'm just an IP and my comment will likely be ignored anyway, but I hope people read and process this comment in any case. Cheers. I hope the discussion goes more towards notability and less about what amounts to dog politics. -IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.144.120 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a train wreck. I was just working on the article about a famous dog and added a link to cavapoo (which redirects to cavoodle) because that's the stated breed of an associated dog owned by another famous politician. The source for this was a journal of record and so is quite respectable. As such sources reference such breeds then we will just have to deal with it and turning their names into red links would be disruption contrary to numerous policies including WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and, of course, WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator. JIP | Talk 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

  • Comment, several sources have been presented for a number from this list but no attempts have been made to improve any (I will note that a number of the quotes above read as advertorials and can be used to establish little more than the two parent breeds). Until someone takes the time to improve them, at a minimum those articles should be WP:DRAFTIFYd. Cavalryman (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • AfD is not an article improvement service and draftification is just backdoor deletion because it stops people from being able to find the articles. Our policy is to develop topics in mainspace, where everyone can find them and pitch in.

    "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ..."

If Cavalryman wants to collaborate to improve an article such as Beaglier, per {{sofixit}}, there's nothing stopping him. As it is, all he seems to have done is make a drive-by nomination for deletion with no constructive edits or talkpage discussion. He didn't even make courtesy notifications on the talk pages of the editors who created these articles. Just how are they supposed to discover what has happened to their creations if they are moved elsewhere without notification?
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Andrew. It's also worth noting (as it seems to be frequently misunderstood on AfDs) that notability can be established independently from the status of an article. If the sources above show notability, then the articles should be kept regardless of their current status. And the onus is not on any particular user to improve the article in order to keep it. This is the inherent problem with these mass nominations of articles, which is why I have argued for a complete keep all, with no prejudice to any particular articles being re-nominated and assessed on their individual merit. Bookscale (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’ - Yes, designer breeds exist. Yes, they are popular. Yes, they are cute. Yes, WP:NOT states: ”... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.” Famous, popular and cute is not a good reason to include, and neither is mention in a book when verification of the breed/parentage is unreliable and reliant on visual ID. Science has demonstrated that visual IDs are faulty; therefore, so-called “designer breeds” or dog types are sketchy at best. If they did breed true, they would have been recognized by a reputable breed registry. Instead, we have puppy mills and backyard breeders gouging unsuspecting buyers with potentially false and misleading information while selling them on “looks”. Inclusion of such articles is dangerously close-skirting policy because we would be accepting unverifiable crossbreeds and giving them encyclopedic recognition based on anecdotal information, not verifiable facts, historical accounts, quality record-keeping or DNA results that verify lineage. I also hesitate over merging such articles to the true breed articles because the former represents crossbreeds that lack verifiability of parentage by RS. Most are based entirely on anecdotal accounts. WP articles should provide sound, verifiable information, and I am not convinced that unverifiable crossbreeds meet that expectation, regardless of the number of online sources and/or dog books that contribute to their fame and popularity of a purported (unofficially recognized and unverifiable) designer breed. Atsme Talk 📧 14:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This stuff about "true breeds" is unscientific. Per this paper, most dogs have little genetic variation, being descended from "just three original founding females". It follows that "dog breeds do not represent a biological classification; rather hobbyists are responsible". Per WP:NPOV, we have no right or reason to take sides between the various hobby communities and clubs, regardless of how they dignify themselves. I am writing this in London where the Queen is content with her dorgis and her Prime Minister has a Jack Russell cross. If such pillars of society are content with dogs that are not "true breeds", we should likewise be tolerant and accommodating. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not once does that article state that there is very little genetic variation between dog breeds; that is your interpretation of what the sociologists said. Perhaps you might pursue what evolutionary biologists have to say on the topic. That breeds can be identified by their mDNA is proven, and there are numerous businesses that do just that. It is also proven that "pure breeding" leads to deleterious genes - not a good thing for dogs. It is unclear what the term "biological classification" brings to your mind, nobody is arguing that a breed is a subspecies of C. lupus. William Harristalk 10:37, 17 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beaglier&oldid=937329133"