Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavachon

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavachon[edit]

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggle (dog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderjack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puggle (dog). Might be just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

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 (written by Elf)

I am having more concerns over time as some of these articles keep reappearing (as did Puggle (dog)). This article is a stub but a google search shows it to be used all over the place. It seems to me that we might be better off leaving some of the more common ones, which this seems to be, with all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get. The other issue is that it's going to keep reappearing because the names ARE being used and the dogs ARE being sold and people WILL come looking for the name.

So if this seems inside out, I'm listing it because we've been trying to keep these invented combined-breed-name mixed breed dogs out, and I think this will come up for deletion eventually if I don't nom it.

- Elf | Talk 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elf | Talk 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Royboy crashfan 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. -- Vary | Talk 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles should be verifiably sourced like any other, though. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikkyu. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is actually sourced. Elf gets my award for "2nd most unusual AfD nomination I've ever seen", just behind this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmasterka (talk • contribs) .
- Yeah, this article's sourced, but the nom is intending to refer to this discussion as setting some kind of precedent, so it's good to be clear. I particularly would desire that "all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get" be sourced, especially if such assertions are controversial. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grandmasterka. --Krashlandon (e) 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this breed is important Yuckfoo 00:02, 4 March 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.