Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Animal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Animal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Animal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Animal/archive

Pugese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. The only reliable sources covering the crossbreed are focused on Peggy. An article on Peggy might be able to meet GNG but this crossbreed fails GNG and should be redirected to list of dog crossbreeds Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and United Kingdom. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep (as article creator) - the breed is covered by several websites related to dogs and dog breeds. I think it has enough coverage to pass GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those dog breed websites cited in the article aren't reliable sources.

  They also write the same low quality generic articles on every possible hybrid combination there is. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They're websites about dog breeds, writing lots of articles about hybrid breeds is kinda the point, no? I'm not sure how they're unreliable or how the articles are generic/low-quality. They clearly aren't made using generic information, they contain specific facts such as litter size, height, weight, health risks, and other information that requires actual research or knowledge about the breed. For example, the wagwalking source contains information about possible eye colors, possible nose colors, coat variations, coat thickness, hair texture, major and minor health risks, brushes used for grooming, and way more information that can't be considered generic. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How are they reliable to begin with? They assert the same generic information for every dog breed that cannot be sourced anywhere actually reliable, or if it is it is just copied from Wikipedia. These websites plagiarise and bullshit so they appear in search results and advertise dog food or pet insurance.

  >they contain specific facts such as ...

  And how on earth do they have this information? These are novel crossbreeds so where is the reliable source for this information? How can something with absolutely 0 mentions in veterinary literature have accurate health information about it?

  The sites claim the pugese has a predisposition to granulomatous meningoencephalitis, but this is obviously information they've just copied from their article on the Pug into the pugese article without any basic fact checking. The mutation that causes encephalitis in the Pug is recessive and doesn't exist in the Chinese Crested, so a hybrid of those two would not be able to contract it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep per Di (they-them). - Sebbog13 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]