Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Beazley (dog)
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 keep. MBisanz talk 01:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Miss Beazley (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not too fond of the current US administration myself, but are you seriously saying that www.whitehouse.gov[1] is not a reliable third party source?
SIS12:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It's not third-party in this case. I'm not contesting the factual accuracy of the article, but the notability of the topic to justify a separate article. VG ☎ 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say whitehouse.gov is third party here. It's not Jenna Bush's blog or anything, it's a national government site. The dog isn't theirs.
SIS19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say whitehouse.gov is third party here. It's not Jenna Bush's blog or anything, it's a national government site. The dog isn't theirs.
- It's not third-party in this case. I'm not contesting the factual accuracy of the article, but the notability of the topic to justify a separate article. VG ☎ 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wasn't a merge and redirect to List of United States Presidential pets not considered instead of us ending up here? Hiding T 12:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of United States Presidential pets, per Hiding.
SIS19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 03:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep why are we here? Sources are all over. [2] is a good example. A merge, as suggest above is reasonable, but darn it, there is no way this could qualify for deletion. Hobit (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this relisted? The consensus seems fairly clear, there's no consensus to delete. Hiding T 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close A Google news search showed plenty of sources. I added a few. Notability established. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An utterly non-notable animal of no special abilities or accomplishments. Notability is not inherited, and this dog only has mention in press stories in relation to a notable owner. Edison (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? There are whole articles on this dog on major news sites. One was provided above. Heck, IMDB has a 9 minute short listed about this dog. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lots of Presidential pets have articles. Article is properly sourced and written. Ward3001 (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - zero possibility of this not meeting notability threshold, especially if Barney (dog) and India (cat) do. Long history of presidential pets meeting notability on wikipedia. Consider WP:SNOW... 69.137.62.229 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2008 (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.