Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog)

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 merge to Queen Elizabeth's corgis. Opinion is split roughly equally between delete, keep and merge. After discounting the opinions that do not make an understandable argument, such as the "delete" opinion by 31.123.217.150 or the "keep" opinion by Justice007, it appears to me that a merger reflects consensus insofar as (a) it's acceptable as a second preference to several people who have advocated keeping or deleting, and (b) numerically the distribution of opinions among the three options mentioned initially reflects a consensus to retain the material but also a consensus not to do so in a separate article.  Sandstein  15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog)[edit]

Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog) (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)

Not a notable dog. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the British royls didn't bring me out in arash i'd look for an article what little thr is here could be merged to.31.123.217.150 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Speedy delete in fact, absolutely not notable. Eh, I used to write essays like this when I was five. Samar Talk 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have speedied this but, you know, it's the Queen's dog and all and I watched that clip during the Olympics. I do believe we reached consensus that A7 applies to animals as well. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few dogs belonging to famous people have an article. But this dog is only famous for two things; being a queen's dog (hey dyk that there are a couple more queen regnants) and appearing for a few seconds in the Olympics opening beside her. And now he is dead so I am not expecting anymore appearances (hopefully). The article at max will always be a stub. If it has to be inducted in wikidogi hall of fame, it should be here. And while we are at it, who the hell is Don Cherry and why is his dog here? Samar Talk 07:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BITE :). The article was nominated for deletion within one minute of its creation. The article contained a source demonstrating international coverage by Time magazine and the nominator states above that he is quite familiar with the topic. The claim that this topic is not notable is therefore absurdly false. Warden (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy or guideline to back up your !vote? (WP:BITE isn't a keep reason (and doesn't seem to apply). One mention in Time doesn't cut it. Your interpretation of what the nominator stated is immaterial as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BITE is a relevant guideline as it specifically says that articles by new editors should not be nominated for deletion "within seconds of creation" and that's what was done here. Notice that this new editor has not edited Wikipedia since this unpleasant incident. Patrolling new articles from the front of the queue and not following WP:BEFORE are also frowned upon. If you want a policy-based reason to keep then that would be our standard editing policy. What we're lacking here is a policy-based reason to delete. Warden (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, WP:BITE does not say that about nominating articles for deletion. It says that about nominating articles for speedy deletion, which is not what we're talking about here. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The effect is the same: the new editor has been scared off by hostile templating and no longer contributes. See WP:NPP which spells out correct behaviour in more detail: "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Users will often start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the following hours or days.". Warden (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence (in-depth 3rd party reliable sources) that this dog is particularly notable. The Queen's article already notes her passion for Corgi's. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources say he was notable for his "sketch for the 2012 Summer Olympics." Plus his death got news coverage, showing he must be notable. And he was the queen's dog as well. Dream Focus 13:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Numerous non-notable people were in "sketches" for the Olympics. While we can certainly find cites for their names and the sketches they were in, they are still not notable, unless they meet the requirements of a notability guideline. Most of them do not. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they made headlines as this dog did, and got the coverage this one did, then they'd meet easily meet the WP:GNG as well, and thus be notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in newspapers doesn't necessarily imply notability (as you are well aware), per WP:NOT#NEWS, and pretty much all the sources that are dedicated to the topic are human interest stories after the dog died. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All news is designed to be human interest stories, since humans are their target audience and they want keep them interested. Honestly now. The WP:GNG would be meaningless if you declared that nothing in the news mattered. They interview and talk about famous people in the news, and that's used to prove the person is notable, even though most of these people are just entertainers. Does the fact that this is a dog and not a human make any difference? Dream Focus 10:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources provided span over 5 years and include books as well as newspapers. The topic easily satisfies WP:GNG and there are hundreds of comparable articles such as Bo (dog) which have been repeatedly kept at AFD. The complaint that this is "human interest" is absurd because Wikipedia is written for humans, not robots or dogs. Warden (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, there are notable dogs: They have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, meeting GNG. A string of passing mentions is not substantial coverage. I see no other guideline that seems to fit here, nor do I see any that the dog would pass as a human. Nothing but trivial coverage = not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge' Reliable sources say he was notable. He is more important than a lot of the competitors. We have a number of articles on various White House dogs. At the very worst merge into an article on Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II. What's the difference? This is an example of a particular kind of bias in articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources may say he was "notable", but they are not in a position to say he was notable. I don't know what "particular kidn of bias" you are seeing. While it may or may not require attention on Wikipedia, the question here is notability. If reliable sources aren't discussing a particular variety of topics, those topics are not notable. If reliable sources discuss the pebble I just found in my shoe, hey presto! - it's notable. If reliable sources didn't discuss Pluto, Pluto would not be notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I do not dispute that Pluto is notable. He (and it are the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. As I have already said, there are notable dogs. Monty is halfway there: we've nailed the "dog" part. The "notable" part is still wanting. (True story that you'll never believe: When I said "Pluto", I was referring to the (former) planet, not the cartoon dog.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I supposed that you meant the planet and thought it amusing to introduce the dog (which was named after the planet). The article in question has as many sources as the article about Pluto (dog) and they are of better quality - the Pluto article has weak sources such as IMDB and the cartoons themselves. The actual evidence is therefore that Monty is more notable than Pluto. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd encourage you to think a bit more deeply about this. Monty's been at AfD with the Article Rescue Squad working on it and that's all we have. Pluto has been languishing in obscurity -- in the shadow of Goofy, no doubt, as Wikipedia is biased in favor of more "human" dogs. When the wealthy take over Wikipedia, this will be corrected. In any case, even the more bureaucratically inclined must admit that Pluto is clearly notable and easily expanded. Sorry to kick a dog when he's down, but Monty? Not so much. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monty's performance in the recent Olympics was watched by about a billion people. His death was widely covered in the international press. His upbringing is detailed in various books about the royals and their dogs. Monty's notability could hardly be clearer while Pluto is just another cartoon animal. I prefer Deputy Dawg, myself, and it's amusing to see that that article has no sources at all. It's quite silly to be arguing about topics for which sources are abundant when there's so much weaker material about. Warden (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were lots of non-notable people on that field, seen by those same billion people. Each and every one of them would be notable if there were substantial coverage in independent reliable sources about them. There isn't. Ditto this dog. As usual, if there is much weaker material out there, feel free to put it up for deletion, Colonel. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability for animals in my opinion but my fellow good doctor has a point about individual right to an article. At the very worst merge into an article on Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II. The material shouldn't be deleted but could potentially be merged into a general article. I'd probably favour a general article in which more information can be gathered to produce a full length article, but I'm fine with this as an individual entry too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two notable articles I'm spotting here are Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II and Corgi Room, an article on that room of Buckingham Palace. Perhaps I'll see later...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your excellent work improving this article. Note that I had already started an umbrella article for the topic at Queen Elizabeth's corgis. We also have an article on the first of them: Susan (dog). Warden (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr., Colonel, 7&6=thirteen, I gotta hand it to you: great work on the article. I haven't changed my mind, of course, since I'm a rock of Gibraltar. Colonel, you don't mind if I take issue with your word choice--but I won't hold your love of rhetoric against you (and you know as well as I do, though in your position you must conveniently forget this, that being written up doesn't mean "notable"). 7&6=thirteen, you really need a title to add to your user name, otherwise you can't really hang with the evil doctor and the colonel. Since you're going with the numbers, maybe something academic? or engineering-related? Drmies (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about Corgis of Queen Elizabeth II instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without you, Dr., this place would be a lot more boring (and we'd only have half the articles). Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Priapus worship, Water dancing in the Solomon Islands or Eggplant production in China any takers?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest "Agent 13". Then they would need henchmen... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that! User:Agent_13 can probably be usurped. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, Agent 13 is a cool sounding name. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we wasting Wikipedia's resources and bandwidth on a semi-notable dog (bc of few seconds appearance in olympics, assuming the dog is a person) especially when the resources are attained through begging for donations. If the article has to be kept why not in List of notable dogs or a larger collective article on royal pets. Samar Talk 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "bandwidth" we are talking about, that would be an admission that users were looking at the article, which a fortiori demonstrates the need and interest. If there is interest and need then Q.E.D. it is not a waste. Thus, you have admitted yourself out of a claim.
If it is space on a hard drive or server we are talking about, what is the value of that?
Respectfully, I think we can err on the side of being too inclusive (too much of the irrelevant) rather than too exclusive (too little of the relevant).
My bias argument was not directed at anyone here personally. Rather, I was talking about unconscious systemic bias, which excludes matters that are off the beaten path. I think that including this particular article as part of a larger article should assuage any legitimate concern.
That some of us don't like a 'fixation on the Royals' does not mean that all of our other readers are of the same mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Ohnoitsjamie seems to have uploaded a picture of his dog, Poncho, to Wikipedia. At 34K, that's more space than the article in question which is currently 8K + 18K for its picture. Please see WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't space; it's notability. My point was the applying IAR to deletion discussions is silly; it's basically saying "create an article about anything you want, no matter how trivial." OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that Poncho is not notable but we have its picture and this is linked to many pages, including this one now. Editors seem quite happy to generate endless amounts of non-notable material such as that picture and this discussion and they are rarely deleted. Why should we exert ourselves to delete material which is far more notable and of far more interest to our general readership? Our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE, is to keep material which is of potential use in articles. The material about Monty clearly qualifies. Warden (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One could just reverse the argument and say "Delete: assuming good faith and ignore all rules" IRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just good and well-executed reply and it can be.Justice007 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Queen Elizabeth's corgis. It could be an excellent article, full of murder [1][2], assault [3][4], drunkenness [5], insanity [6], travel [7][8], and, of course, love.[9].--Milowent • hasspoken 03:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage in the article's 10 references demonstrates the dog has sufficient notability to deserve its own article. All credit to Dr Blofield, the Colonel, Dream , CallawayRox and 7&6=thirteen for their outstanding improvements. God save the Queen! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is indeed coverage, but a lot of it is just puffery. One paragraph of the article is on general points about all the dogs owned by the Queen, and this is already in Queen Elizabeth's corgis. The rest should be merged there. However that article mentions dogs that are not corgis, so it should be moved to Queen Elizabeth's dogs or even Queen Elizabeth's pets. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep notable corgi with notable owner. At minimum can be merged to Queen Elizabeth's corgis so deletion is not an option. CallawayRox (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Queen Elizabeth's corgis - I don't think that it, alone, can justify an article. In the broader context of the Queen's dogs, however, the content could still be usable. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Queen Elizabeth's corgis. I can't see a logical reason why both of these should exist separately.-Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and redirect to Queen Elizabeth's corgis. Okay that WP probably is the largest existing encyclopedia, but I don't see this topic as worthy of a separate entry in any given encyclopedia. Per common sense, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense would surely indicate that, as we have articles about the dogs of other English monarchs (e.g. Caesar and Dash); the dogs of other heads-of-state (e.g. Bo and Koni); and even other corgis owned by the Queen (e.g. Susan); then it would be fine to have another such article about a similar canine who had also starred in an event watched by a significant portion of the world's population. But I'm not seeing the common sense case for this discussion - it seems to be yet another blatant example of WP:LIGHTBULB contrary to WP:NOTFORUM - an excuse for any idle passerby to vent their personal opinions about dogs, royalty, planets, &c. Why is that we never delete these discussions but instead just delete the stuff that people might actually want to read? Warden (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree. Although I wonder why the dorgi who died didn't get as much attention and an article too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deceased dorgi as essentially only a footnote in the press coverage of the James Bond/Olympic coverage/Queen's dog. But merging this into an omnibus Queen's dogs (not just the Corgis) article makes a lot of sense to me. The queen has had a lot of dogs during her many years of service. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try reading an omnibus article such as United States presidential pets, especially on a mobile phone, like most people do now. Great walls of text and lumbering lists are poor style. Bo (dog) gets more than four times the traffic of that awful article and I'm not surprised. Warden (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that I cannot imagine a similar page in whatsoever encyclopedia. "he enjoyed a privileged life at Buckingham Palace, with an extensive menu and his own gourmet chef, shared with the other corgis.", "He was given by Queen Elizabeth to her mother but was subsequently returned after fears that she would trip over the frisky puppy.", "Monty, like the other corgis enjoyed a privileged life in Buckingham Palace." "He resided in the Corgi Room with his siblings, sleeping in elevated wicker baskets to avoid the draughts of the palace.", "At Christmas, Her Majesty would make stockings for Monty and her other pets full of toys and delicacies such as biscuits." IMHO an article entirely made of such stuff is NOT encyclopedic, plain and simple. Cavarrone (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on where it was, that could involve a violation of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which probably should be updated! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Monty (Queen Elizabeth's Dog)#Controversy - SummerPhD (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Super Bitch.jpg (non-free image removed)
  • Warden, if you retain several of the hundreds of articles I created are eligible for deletion you are free to nominate them for deletion, but making so that I look as just a creator of porn-related articles is firstly clearly bad-faith, as, even if I have no problem to create similar contents, they are an extreme minority of my work (see list of my articles), secondly that has nothing to do with the current topic or with my arguments and it sounds as a personal attack, thirdly the first two articles are about two film series that have won some significant awards in their field and the third, despite its title, instead is a British-Italian crime film (sign that you probably have not even checked the articles). They would probably/surely have an entry in an encyclopedia about adult cinema or about Italian poliziottesco cinema, with similar/more detailed contents, instead, as I said above, I cannot imagine a printed encyclopedia with an entry about Monty and that have similar contents. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Milo - the corgis collectively have an interesting history, and Monty is extremely unlikely to do anything else to capitalise on his new-found fame. henchman-in-waiting 17:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Cavarrone has an 'Italian pornograph' in his tool chest doesn't seem to be particular relevant. If you have been here a while, you wind up editing (or creating) some strange articles. It is relevant only in that it supports the notion that he encyclopedia is big enough to house articles that are for varied readers. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 23 September 2012 (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/Monty_(Queen_Elizabeth%27s_Dog)&oldid=1142282388"