Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley (dog) (2nd nomination)

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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley (dog)

[edit]
Dudley (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Dudley labrador" (a liver pigmented type of labrador retriever), or even dudley as a type of pigmented dogs in general, doesn't seem notable by any usual criteria. The google test (a search for "Dudley labrador" on google) finds only 48 hits. A recent AFD was held on the grounds of verifiability. There were 4 responses and some web cites were provided to verify existance of the term.

Relist for AFD is on the twin basis that:

  1. 4 respondents (3 keep, 1 delete, excluding nominator) didn't provide a sufficient basis to determine consensus (WP:DP refers), more consensus is probably needed
  2. The real problem with this article and the more relevant reason for AFD listing was not verifiability (the existence of the term can be checked through Google); it's that the "dudley" probably isn't notable enough.

A possible opposing view might be that a person coming across the term might want to know what it means and see a photo. But this could be said of many non-notable subjects and can be fixed by disambiguation (dudley (disambiguation) -> labrador retriever). The "dudley" type in and of itself, doesn't seem very noteworthy. The information that does exist is fully covered in Labrador retriever#Lab nose and skin pigmentation.

(As an aside, WikiProject Dog breeds are developing notability criteria for subtypes and strains; it's questionable whether by any of the proposals to date, this one will be notable either.)


  1. It was already mentioned in Labrador Retriever, and I just expanded that section and added the references.
  2. The google test (in this case for "Dudley labrador") is an extremely poor way of testing notability. Other used names appear to include "Retriever Dudley", "Labrador Dudley" and simply "Dudley".
  3. Apparently, the dog breed notability standards are on the way. Speculating that this one might not be included, when the standards are not yet finished is a bit strange and there is no reason to hurry deletion of this article in the mean time.
--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - many of the hits for the search you suggested aren't for dudley labs. they are for web pages which contain the term "labrador retriever" and the name "dudley", either of a person or a dog. A mention in Lab retriever might be relevant, but I just don't see its own article being appropriate. It looks like a fairly minor item within the lab world as it is, a term for a type of coloration. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be right about those hits, yet if you wanted the article merged (as you just included as an option [1] as a 'minor tweak' to your vote, you should not have put it up here at AfD, but simply should have merged it. Merging of articles does NOT include deleting one of them (see also Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion, which says Note that "merge into [[article]] and delete" cannot be performed simply by copying and pasting text from the original article into the target unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved), as the author history should be preserved per the GFDL. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's been a long day. What I mean is, the information on pigmentation in labs is relevant to the lab article, and a disambiguation page on the word "dudley" should include a link to labrador retriever, but the dudley article itself should be deleted. Hence as stated, merging the information (not the entirety of the article). Apologies for lack of clarity, it's been a long day. I've just reworded it for clarification. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there was, but it was on an incorrect basis. There were other, legitimate, grounds for AFD -- hence this listing entirely independent of the first (and which would have happened anyway). Hope that explains. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Labrador retriever. Edison 15:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Labrador retriever and cut out excess information, under new light the article doesn't stand well on its own. Darthgriz98 18:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dudley appears to be just a name for an albino lab. There is no evidence offered that this mutation or its name are culturally or linguistically notable, like White elephant. There is room for the verifiable information in this article to be included in the main article. Nick Graves 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is already in the main article and the search term is extremely unlikely. Nuttah68 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 days after last seems to fly in the face of what AfD is for, we do not nominate an article everyday until concensus is what we want it to be. Further the google search above is flawed. The quotation marks mean the terms have to appear right in that order. So people looking for "chocolate labrador" or "Liver nosed Labrador" etc. which are all alternate names for a Dudley will end up not finding the full search. Considering this is out of order renominating 2 days after last close and the google search being used as the basis is incorrectly formatted I think its bes tto keep the article. --NuclearZer0 16:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The (correct) comment about relisting applies to repeated attempts to game the deletion system by instant relist, and also where there was a good quality outcome first time that a reasonable person would have accepted as the view of editors. In the present case the relist is on the twin view that appropriate deletion grounds omitted in AFD/1 are more appropriate for a genuine enquiry "should the article be deleted for these more correct reasons", and because 4 responses is not consensus anyway really (as anticipated and approved by WP:DP). It's not a relist 'just to get it deleted' or similar. Hope that clarifies. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt and you never addressed the other points of the flawed google search etc. --NuclearZer0 14:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that; keep. Too soon to re-Afd. F.F.McGurk 07:44, 17 January 2007 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dudley_(dog)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137805570"