Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dukey

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 delete. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Dukey

Biography of a dog who has "earned cult status in some online communities". The one genuine claim to fame (or should I say "fame") is that Dukey apparently appears in the Trainz railroad simulator. I'm not sure how we know it's Dukey and not, say, Lassie, but in any case I think this merits at most a mention in Trainz, and a deletion of this article. bikeable (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I created the model for Trainz, so I can say with 100% certainty it's Dukey. Abstaining from voting as otherwise certain people will make my life not worth living. FiggyBee 04:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• ok, thanks for the info. I still think Dukey deserves a spot in the Trainz article, but not a separate one. bikeable (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A biography of a dog which MANY have come to love! There is a large community out there of Dukey fans, and just because one has not heard of the beloved dog, does not mean this article deserves a deletion. There are many seperate large interent relations to Dukey, as well as ACTUAL proof and word of mouth that Dukey is in Trainz. Dukey has become a symbol, and loved by all who learn about him! Keep this article.--Gods killed 04:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dukey is quite known though, it would be unfair to delete an article that a few people took time to put up. It's not just there for fun...it's up because it is based on a real thing. I just don't see why you would want to delete this... DON'T DELETE! --King Andy 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the owner of Dukey and I do know all the facts. Dukey is no joke although it is unbelievable what he has achieved just by being a dog, its surreal but still REAL. It is amazing how many people know of Dukey. It keeps growing. A lot needs to be added still about Dukey's history and family tree! Keep! --David_VI 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dukey is 100% real, and has a rather large fanbase, which has extended well beyond Trainz. Most notably, Dukey is idolized among a large portion of those who partake of the last.fm website. Dukey's popularity is continually growing, and the ranks increase on a daily basis. KEEP DUKEY!!!!JeffTheTerrible 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence that this dog meets the canine equivalent of WP:BIO. We certainly don't need to know about his family tree. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Capital. Can I say sock puppet? I mean, common... 5 people in a row who don't know how to format entries into an AFD all within an hour? ---J.Smith 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And can I say assume good faith? I resent and deny the allegation that I have created sock puppets - I was asked by David_VI by instant message to confirm that the model in Trainz is of Dukey. Apart from that, I am staying out of this AFD - and my apologies for not knowing the 'correct' formatting. FiggyBee 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet? I did not just join because of Dukey, but reather he is part of the reason. I have contributed twice now to my knowledge, and just because we have just joined does not mean that should exclude us from wanting to share our knowledge of a subject that has become widely known. There are people that even we do not know who talk about Dukey. I recall a discussion on a french forum about the dog. It is not just us, there are plenty others who would love to know more about Dukey, but just dont know where to look.--Gods killed 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Capitalistroadster... doesn't meet WP:BOW-WOW. Also, when we have four users who jumped on the AfD minutes after it was created, who have no significant contributions to Wikipedia beyond this article and its AfD, and no edits prior to today, vehemently opposing its deletion... the reasoning behind which sock puppetry is alleged by J.Smith seems not too far-fetched. I'm just going to leave it at that... --Kinu ^t/_c 06:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not denying that there's clearly some outside organisation going on here. I'm just denying that it's me behind it. I wasn't even aware that the article in question existed before today, when I was contacted directly by David_VI and asked to post here. FiggyBee 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, If your truly innocent, I apologise for blaming you. I blame the timing. ---J.Smith 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Someone said to me Duke deserved a Wikipedia page and not being a user I thought id attempt the task of making one which was quite tough (for me anyway) but had some help. The other people who have commented (excluding Figgybee) are people from http://www.last.fm who just signed up and came to support Dukey out of good means. If hes not worthy of a small wiki page then fine I am sorry and I apologise for the lack of AFD formatting, i'm new and its quite a task learning all this. Had to start somewhere. I still say Keep! but its out of my control really ---David_VI 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as said above. Wikipedia should not become an area for blogging and similar practises. Perhaps a mention in the trainz article, but fanning it out into a full article is perhaps not necessary. Be aware that there has to be a little impartiality here at wikipedia. Bringing 'sock puppets', albeit accidental, into this discussion is again not the best thing to do. Finally, I think "Someone said to me Duke deserved a Wikipedia page" should have been taken more 'as a compliment' then as a true recomendation... 217.205.250.130 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (tommylommykins)

  I will admit, that Yes i signed up for the sake of making a page for Dukey. I will also admit that in my honest opinion he deserves it. There was no, and is no, 'sock puppeting' going on. The closest thing to making people 'sock puppets' was myself in an IRC server telling Dukey's owner that his page we made was up for deletion, and how we had to try to save it. I am sorry i don't know much about editing and so on, on account of i havnt even had my Wiki account for a full day...i didnt know i was expected to be a Wiki-genious in order to pitch in for the community. In all honesty and no disrespect to anyone, what harm could a Dukey page do? All I see is that we are all putting up a strong fight to keep a well known, and real, underground character's page around. I have seen some of the articles up for deletion and I see how they do deserve it...but ours we all put effort into and time into. We all helped write about him, and we all would be quite sad if the Duke cannot have his own page. Im sure Wiki can set a side a tiny part of its server for our tiny page...--King Andy 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please note you are taking part in the practise of meatpuppeteering. As such, your votes should be discounted. Also, read through Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articlesFinally, it should be noted that since all the users who have voted for a keep can all be considered meatpuppets, there could technically be no 'proper' keep votes tommylommykins 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Let's remember not to bite the newcomers, and to assume good faith. bikeable (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• You cant just assume everyone is a meatpuppet... As I've said I actually take part in wiki in other parts other than just Dukey, and I actually do believe Dukey does deserve his own wiki page. As for WP:BIO, Dukey is not a person. A lot of those things the dog can not achieve, like, being published, unless dogs learn how to write. Nor can a dog be credited for making an album and such.--Gods killed 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Since there is no WP:PETS, WP:BIO is the closest guideline to apply... otherwise this is just a "delete non-notable dog" proposition.--Isotope23 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ok so what can be done to the article to keep it so it will not be deleted?--David_VI 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at WP:BIO, which does not generally apply to dogs, but there's no reason it couldn't. I understand that you all think Dukey merits an article, but from the point of view of an encyclopedia, we just can't include everything, and I can't imagine that Dukey could pass WP:BIO without some major media attention. Take a look through today's list of articles for deletion and you'll realize that many hundreds of articles are created every day that describe stuff that simple isn't encyclopedic. If we include everything, wikipedia would become an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which is not our goal. Don't take it personally -- I'd encourage you to stick around and add to other articles, or create new ones that are notable and verifiable. bikeable (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I like how Dukey isnt a person--Gods killed 20:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO, probable forumcruft. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Duke's page doesn't meet the WP:BIO information, but can't you just once make an acception? It's not like the guys who pitched in on making his page did it just for shoots and ladders (to be appropriate), ALOT of people know who Dukey is...as apposed to a guy who makes his own page just because he has nothing else to do. Please, I beg of you all this small favor, let us keep the Dukey page up. --King Andy 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Guys and girl :P--Gods killed 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of rules is not to make exceptions. Wikipedia has criteria for its content; while you are "free" to post, it actually means "free" as in "beer," not "free" as in "lawless" (see: WP:ENC). To give "favor" and make one subjective exception would set a bad precedent and be more unfair than being objective, as hundreds of pages get deleted for similar reasons on a daily basis. And it is nothing personal about your work: if the consensus is to delete, then it simply means that the subject of the article did not merit inclusion. Do not be discouraged, and please continue to make constructive and positive contributions to Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can definatly see it from both sides, I just wish there was some way to make it so we can save Dukey's page...--King Andy 00:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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.