Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Middleton

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Whatever point the page was used to make has been made. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Middleton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The word "allegedly" in the lead is pretty strong evidence that this is not a notable pet. St Anselm (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination argument is rubbish. How is "alleged" evidence of non-notability. Many notable things may not be altogether reliable. All the facts in the article are referenced and verified. The question is, do the sources indicate notability, not whether the the allegations are true or not. If you want to delete this, you'll need a better reason than "alleged". Otherwise we delete all article on things which may not be true.--Scott Mac 23:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - IT is so super notable i am wetting myself - easily hurdles the grass cutting trivia of GNG minimal triavia level - keep keep I love it. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the picture you added, which doesn't even represent the subject correctly. This is about notability, not cuteness. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Doesn't even touch GNG. Maybe worth a sentence in Kate Middleton, but delete otherwise. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The family are heirs to the throne now - please keep - this is viral of facebook, wikipedia will be laughed at if there is not an article about this family friend. - easily passes the trivia of GNG. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Middleton family are not heirs to the throne. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect whatever is relevant to Kate Middleton. Plausible enough search term, but as substance for an article of its own this is thin gruel indeed. And yes, if 2/3s of an article is "alleged incident", it's a safe bet the topic has no legs. Skomorokh 00:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The alleged incident has been noted in multiple non-trivial sources. And then still others have commented on the veracity of the original reports.--Scott Mac 00:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of which contributes much to the tenability of an article on the canine itself. If you want to spend your free time repurposing this into an article on the flash-in-the-pan incident (which all sources cited except the unreliable one seem to focus on), then by all means go ahead; I expect a tedious AfD would follow that just as quickly. Skomorokh 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be a reason to improve the article, not to delete it. It is verifible, neutral and noted. So keep.--Scott Mac 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd ask what on earth you are referring to, but having just seen this ANI thread, I wonder if the aim of this exercise is to parrot inanities in order to make a point? If so, you could at least try to be a little funnier at it, because it's been a rather tedious reading experience thus far. Skomorokh 00:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has four legs! Ooooh... 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 00:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to the the importance of this --Guerillero | My Talk 00:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK Scott your point has been made - and crushingly so. The citations to the Daily Mail were a nice touch, by the way. Now, how about tagging this for G7 deletion sooner rather than later before WP:POINT becomes used as smokescreen to undermine attention on the actual the issue you're highlighting. CIreland (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the rush? The article is a few hours old, and it is all perfectly verifiable and inoffensive. I've always been pretty inclusionist outside of BLP, so personally I've no particular issue with stuff like this.--Scott Mac 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh! - Alison ^❤ 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, per Skomorokh. We do have some articles on notable animals, but for me Otto doesn't get past WP:N. Surely there's room for him somewhere, just as the Elizabeth II page mentions the Queen's corgis. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to List_of_dogs and put this mutt of an article to sleep. →Stani Stani 01:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move or merge – the sources do not support calling this mut "Otto Middleton", but he does seem to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources; if you really want an article on him, how about Otto (dog)? Oops, that's taken. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are nothing more than trivial. I think we have better topics to address, per WP:NOTNEWS. Hengist Pod (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this allegedly non-notable dog. Alison's comment means, I think, we're headed for no consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am happy to see this moved to Otto (dog). To be honest I did start writing this as a bit of a joke ("people keep creating article on Middleton family members - so let's write one on the dog"). However, as I began to write it, I found there was a real story here and one of note!! "Otto" has literally thousands of mentions all over the internet, and based on multiple stories in British newspapers. The stories make a claim about him and the earing. (That in itself is probably trivia). But the recorded (probable) fact that these newspapers were printing a false story, which was later the attention of other newspapers is not. Further, given the internet coverage (much of it repeating the false story) it would seem well justifiable for Wikipedia to record the who affair and (as far as it is known) the verifiable facts. As I say, all of this is covered in multiple sources. I'm not going to die in a ditch defending this article, but I genuinely do think it justifies keeping and developing. (I'd only just written it when it was nominated - so no doubt a lot more work could be done).--Scott Mac 02:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd risk upsetting the Queen's corgis? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely there is already an "Otto (dog)" article. So we'd need some other disambiguating title.--Scott Mac 02:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peeved delete: this appears to be simply a rather silly attempt to see how far WP:INHERITED & royal wedding mania can be taken. Does not appear to be even a reliable source confirming that the Middletons own this poor benighted pooch. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Several sources claim that that the dog was owned by the Middletons. However, being owned by the Middletons would not make it notable. What makes it notable is that it has been the subject of dozens mainstream media stories. You are not addressing that.--Scott Mac 02:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Complete bollocks -- what is blatantly obvious is that this dog would have received no attention whatsoever but for its ambiguous relationship to the Middleton family -- and so has no notability independent of them. WP:TABLOID obsession with Willy, Willy's-Katie, Willy's-Katie's-boring-sister, Willy's-Katie's-even-more-boring-brother, Willy's-Katie's-missing-earring, the-dog-that-may-have-eaten-Willy's-Katie's-missing-earring, and each and every one of the This Is the House That Jack Built permutations thereof, is WP:NOT a suitable basis for an article. What's next? An article on the-maker-of-the-collar-for-the-dog-that-may-have-eaten-Willy's-Katie's-missing-earring? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clearly violates our Biography of Living Dogs policy. Obviously created as an attack page by a cat lover, this kind of POV pushing makes me sick. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Otto Middleton is a black cocker spaniel"—I'm sorry, but pets known mainly just for belonging to high-profile people are almost never notable. The exceptions would be perhaps Bo (dog) or Socks (cat), both of which have received more coverage in secondary sources than Otto here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not notable, no coverage and not even any proof that the dog has the Middleton surname!! Doubt it's on a birth certificate or dog's pedigree or by deed poll so if anything it ought to be Otto (dog of The Middleton's).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note that dog in Catherine Middleton's article. The Middletons are not a family of dogs. A dog can't be adopted by the Middleton family because he's a dog. A dog is never a member of a family in law, or genealogical. This is only a sarcastic vandalism. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole article is full of "alleged" and "claimed", that's a terrible start to begin with. Also; does not really pass the WP:GNG, is trivial un-encyclopaedic rubbish. At most worth a line or two in Kate's article. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where's the article about Queen Elizabeth and her Corgis? Pharos Windsor, Swift Windsor, Emma Windsor and Linnet Windsor? -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's Otto, a dog in the Middleton family. That's anyway more correct. -- LeoDavid (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I'm not so sure, and moving it during the deletion discussion is not really all that helpful. The title you chose is different from our usual naming conventions so I moved it back. But go ahead and open a move discussion if it survives AFD --Errant ^(chat!) 11:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what next, an article on a tree the Middleton's garden?! Giant Snowman 09:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Delete '. But Scotty Mac does have a point about this obsession with this family..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with possible Redirect. Does not pass WP:N... and let's remember that notability is not inherited. It's touching to see that everyone cares about the Middleton family, but we must remember that notability is not temporary and we should take the long term view. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my understanding of the notability guidelines. At best some material might be salvageable for British media response to a Royal Wedding. No chance of a quick close on this process and a bollocking for bringing wikipedia into disrepute through negligent editing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - all animals are equal (although apparently some animals are more equal than others). Needs rescuing, perhaps eventual merge to list of Royal pets, akin to the list of Presidential pets. Keristrasza (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Highly notable topic of deep encyclopedic interest. If we don't preserve this crucial knowledge, it will be gone forever in 10-20 years, and humanity will be so much poorer for it. Also add coverage about the cross-dressing gay tomcat friend of Duke Otto that I heard about on a YouTube video! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge! - haha, this is one article too far. I feel a bit sorry for the father, who evidently is considered less noteworthy than his pet. Having said that, if we're going ahead with the Middleton family merge proposal, I guess Otto can have his day there. Bob talk 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with the full pedigree. This AfD is rabid deletionism taken one step too far! Hans Adler 12:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep (I was canvassed, BTW, albeit indirectly) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we have this article stay, does that mean everyone gets to create a page for their pets? Just because an animal is owned by someone notable does not make the pet notable. Oy gevalt! I'd be for deleting the Bo article as well, unless he does something notable. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First we had List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton, then Wedding dress of Kate Middleton. I argued to keep those two, but this one's notability pales in comparison. Like User:Bob Castle said, an article too far, I'm sorry. Merge to Middleton family. - Yk (talk | contrib) 14:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has received significant coverage in the media, meaning he is independently notable in his own right. Whole articles have been written about this dog by the likes of the Daily Mail, clearly demonstrating its notability as an encyclpoedic topic. That article was written in 2009, well before the marriage of William and Kate, so obviously there is simply no case to answer on the grounds of inherited notability, as Kate and William were merely dating at the time. According to a Daily Telegraph article about Prince William's 28th birthday present to Kate, this dog caused her to be upset and embarrassed when he ate the earings. This sort of notice in reliable sources clearly shows Otto is independantly notable and worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Because that's what notability is after all - getting noticed in sources. And there's loads of other sources out there also, I've seen them. Everything else can be fixed by adhering to our normal editing policy - as such this Afd nomination was clearly disruptive. If people want to delete this article just because Otto is a dog, they are showing their clear bias against dogs, are in danger of alienating our dog focused readership, and are clearly not adhering to our policies and guidelines which only care about how much coverage a topic gets. Merging this article into the family article is not an option, as that would give out the impression that we consider Otto more important than other Middleton family members not mentioned in the family article, which would be a clear violation of the BLP policy. Kate is the future Queen of England, and therefore Otto is notable. Kate is now a Duchess also, so Otto is now part of the nobility, so this also shows he deserves an article here, as there are plenty of other articles here that exist purely because they are nobility. I came here to this article to read more about Otto, therefore he is obviously notable, as giving readers the information they want to know on the stuff they find interesting is what Wikipedia is for after all. Otto Middleton generates 3,550,000 results in Google, therefore he is also clearly notable. We have other articles on dogs called Otto, therefore this Otto deserves an article too. If Wikipedia can delete an article on the family dog of the wife of the son of the son of the head of the British Royal Family, then the whole world will laugh at us. When this article was put up for deletion on the German Wikipedia, it was speedy kept, and the German media all laughed at English Wikipedia for even starting this Afd. Q.E.D., I have proven beyond doubt that Otto is notable according to our policies and guidelines. And besides, it strikes me that being the pet of the Middleton family is an important enough topic for which we can ignore those anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kate might be the future Queen consort of the United Kingdom & 15 other commonwealth realms. Never say, of England. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah see where you are coming from. I might just change my 'Delete' choice to 'Keep'. By the way the Middletons have a racehorse,Sohraab. Might be worth its own article?--Egghead06 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as Otto passes away. After that core policies on WP:Biographies of living pets will no longer apply, so that a more detailed account of the life and deeds of these domestic companions can be given. The 2001 obituary of Kelpie in the Daily Telegraph, contains what I assume were hitherto undisclosed facts about Kelpie and his forebear Susan: "Susan, the Queen's first corgi, earned notoriety by nipping the ankle of the royal clockwinder, and taking chunks out of the legs of various servants, a detective and a policeman. Kelpie is believed to have led a relatively blameless life - although there are suspicions that she may have disfigured a jigsaw, borrowed by the Queen from the National Jigsaw library." Mathsci (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would any one want to destroy a dog that has done no harm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly non-notable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - as utterly non-notable, tabloid, trivial, bollocks. ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has received significant coverage in the media, meaning he is independently notable in his own right. Anyhow this !vote seem to be more directed at "ooh a dog on Wikipedia.. what?" then actual reasonings to why this article should be deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then tell us what is notable about the dog. The article doesn't say why the dog is notable. Dogs try to digest things they shouldn't all the time. Besides, according to wikipedia's own article, the Daily Mail does not constitute a reliable source, as it is a tabloid. If the dog can play or dance the minuet, that would be notable. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Ignore him, babba's never met an article he didn't want to keep. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you Tarc never let go of a chance to post yet another insult. Surprise, surprise..... If you for once could focus on a subject instead of insulting people with a different opinion than yourself it would help your cause, and some day I might take you seriously. cheers mate;)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And I would probably take you more seriously if your votes didn't invariably wind up on the wrong side of these types of 90%-10% AfDs. Perhaps less time spent worrying about me and more time spent reviewing basic notability guidelines would do some good. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallawayRox (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but the loss of the jewelry might be worth a line in the article about the duchess. As other people have noted, the Daily Mail is not a repiable soruce.Martinvl (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the Wall Street Journal? Keristrasza (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As a very dear and trusted friend of the Royal family, I am very well acquainted with dear little Otto; who is a close and personal friend of my own beloved dog, Crippen. This is an extremely malicious and uncalled for nomination by someone who is clearly a dog hater and probably a bolshevik too. Anything related to a member of Her Majesty's gracious family is clearly notable. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a dog that may exist who may have once eaten an earring? Barely worth a mention in its owners article... BulbaThor (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kate. There are refs, but the info is too meagre for a stand-alone article, I think this is the case of merged Max (pig). Brandmeister t 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge absent a policy on biographies of living dogs, it appears to be a single-event dog. "Him" and "Her" were substantially more famous, and lacking separate articles or even a mention on Wikipedia that I found. Collect (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and ban the nominator — the most important member of this family must be covered in depth by the wikipedia; it is fascist anthropocentrism that will only play into the hands of the Nazis who want to establish a world government ruled by the despicable ideology of apartheid that forces non-human souls into ghettoized niches and wants to belittle their contributions to the great civilizations of the world. It is an outrage that wikipedia tolerates the witchhunt of innocent fellow creatures. Hitler would have been proud of StAnselm whose Germanic name obviously shows that this nomination is nothing more than cloaked antisemitism at its worst — rather than directly comparing Jews to rats and wishing for their death, he now takes it out on a poor, defenseless canine. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that the dog is black??? Does anyone really this is a mere coincidence??? Where is your common decency? I cannot believe that this veiled racism continues to be tolerated by wikipedia in the 21st century!!! Haven't we learned anything from the past? The late Dr. King died so that Otto could have his place in the sun, too, and now StAnslem wants to murder him again in the most bloodthirsty manner. A helpless dog lynched and his decaying body dangling from a tree while hundreds of spectators cheer and celebrate is the true agenda behind this outrageous nomination. Anyone who !votes delete will be guilty of supporting genocide on a scale much larger than what we've seen in Rwanda! Let those images be burnt into your mind before you cast your vote here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - as utterly non-notable, tabloid, trivial, bollocks. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's an echo in here...in here...in here – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NAZI!!! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the Keep comments are getting too silly & should be disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You cannot be serious! --93.44.215.42 (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this Middleton Wikimadness has got to stop! ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Many of the !voters here clearly realise the article was created to make a point about the number of others springing up about Middleton family members; some presumably realise that some of those were created simply to make a point about the Pippa Middleton one. Anyway, it was a point well made and I chortled heartily but unfortunately not everyone's got it, and to labour it any more would verge on the side of disruption. So let's end this now before it gets that far. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dumb, not-newsworthy blurbs about earring-swallowing pets do not pass a common-sense interpretation of our notability guidelines. This is shit that WP:NOTNEWS is designed to prevent. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did common sense ever feature in a WP discussion? If there is coverage then the thing, person, event, animal is notable. If one went about applying common sense the 80% of the articles would be deleted or severely reduced in size. The application of common sense is pretty much a violation of NPOV, and is dangerously close to call for expertism. John lilburne (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially all the coverage of this dog relates to a single incident in which it ate an earring. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of pets of extremely notable people getting articles (such as Bo (dog) or Larry (cat)) but in this case the article violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT as the coverage relates to a single incident, amplified by the hype over the relationship/wedding. Arguing that the subject meets WP:GNG doesn't counter this argument as the GNG is a necessary rather than a sufficient criterion for inclusion. Hut 8.5 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS etc.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OMFG, there is an article on the Middleton family's dog.—Chris!_c/t 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You cannot possibly be serious to keep this nonsense article about an "alleged" pet. Wefihe (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If we could confirm whether the dog is Otto or Ella and whether it lives with the Royals as opposed to the Middletons, it would be a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Middleton family article. Coverage is trivial. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can delete the article, or you can merge it. You can't do both without violating the CC licence.--Scott Mac 21:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't mean it like that. That pet is worth a sentence to say, maybe. Nothing more. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Alleged canine consumption of nacreous gemstones incident of 2011, per WP:BLP1E. According to my reading of Wikipedia's animal-rights articles, dogs are people too and thus qualify for BLP protection. Also recommend strong sanctions against some editors here for blatant canvassing. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I laughed so hard when I read this, because it's ridiculous yet so true. It made my day. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolute bloody nonsense. Any similar content, let alone articles, should also be deleted. Sidetracking our time and energies to be forced to vote on complete trivia submitted facetiously is not funny. Rubywine (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not notable tabloid trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to simultaneously !vote Delete per Qrsdogg; Keep per Stephan Schulz; Strong Keep per Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late); Strong keep and ban the nominator per Seb_az86556; and Merge/redirect per Mastcell. These !voters are the only ones that have a clear understanding of policy. The rest of the !votes should be disregarded by the closing administrator. -Atmoz (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete A joke's a joke but this is just daft. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and whack the Delete voters with a rolled-up newspaper. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If nothing else, this AfD is a good way for us to see which editors have a sense of humour or not, and which editors are clueful or not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable, per Tiny the Tiger too. Lovetinkle (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let's get over with it - frankieMR (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a late April fool (Referring to this Article). Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mock, per Alison. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bishzilla diet, already contains list of dog breeds and canine individuals palatable to Bishzilla. Black cocker spaniel is A OK! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:01, 8 May 2011 (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.