Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bassetdor
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 delete, without prejudice to the creation of a redirect to a suitable article. Sandstein (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bassetdor
- – (View log)
- (added by closing admin)
- (added by closing admin)
Non-notable canine crossbreed. A number of previous AFDs* have determined that, except in exceptional cases, pairings of extant breeds are not inherently notable. This article contains several references, but they only verify incidental claims about the parent breeds; only one mentions the Bassetdor, and that mention appears to be in passing. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- *: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor dog crossbreeds redirected about twenty of them, for example.
- Motion I move that this deletion nomination be withdrawn on the grounds that its rationale is patently invalid. To wit: the phrase of the rationale above: only one mentions the Bassetdor is no longer valid, as we now have three separate direct quotations. Dr.K. (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no. You can't do that. If articles change significantly during an AfD, then commenters can change their opinions... but the article hasn't changed significantly, so the point is moot. (Adding references to two web pages on which the term is used - both of them trivial - comes way short of invalidating the AfD.) I have, in fact, removed the reference to the Sims fansite, as it adds nothing to the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the record As I mentioned in the advocate section below these creatures are mutts. They are the lowest of the low in the hierarchy of dogs. Their pawprints on pop culture are very faint. These links I provided, one of which you just erased, are a very faint cultural pawprint. It is forensic evidence that they exist in pop culture. This evidence may be faint, but it is not trivial. When dealing with the underprivileged one needs to be very sensitive otherwise one may condemn them to even more obscurity. Dr.K. (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, no. You can't do that. If articles change significantly during an AfD, then commenters can change their opinions... but the article hasn't changed significantly, so the point is moot. (Adding references to two web pages on which the term is used - both of them trivial - comes way short of invalidating the AfD.) I have, in fact, removed the reference to the Sims fansite, as it adds nothing to the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Motion I move that this deletion nomination be withdrawn on the grounds that its rationale is patently invalid. To wit: the phrase of the rationale above: only one mentions the Bassetdor is no longer valid, as we now have three separate direct quotations. Dr.K. (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Very strong keep Deletion rationale provided is misleading. Quote from the article: Brian Kilcommons has accurately described "the absurdly wonderful Bassetdor, the product of an affair between a Basset Hound and a Labrador, who looks like a Lab in a funhouse mirror."[1]
The mention has to be in passing because:
- This is a book preview. Kilcommons has to highlight the book, not the dog.
- The book has a chapter on Bassetdor with much more coverage
Kilcommons is a canine trainer extraordinaire with great experience in dogs and dog training. If Bassetdor is mentioned in his book that's notable enough. Quote from the minor dogs crossbreeds for deletion link you provided above: The articles fail to source information to reliable sources. Each articles cites a boilerplate page on dogbreedinfo.com and the AKC definition of a mixed breed. Kilcommons, canine trainer par excellence, protégé of the late dog training icon Barbara Woodhouse, dog trainer of famous dogs, is not a reliable source? It is obvious this is a frivolous deletion request. Dr.K. 12:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Citations and Notes
- ^ Brian Kilcommons and Michael Capuzzo. Mutts: America's Dogs. Grand Central Publishing 1996. Quote: the absurdly wonderful Bassetdor, product of an affair between a Basset Hound and a Labrador, who looks like a Lab in a funhouse mirror;
- Delete, non-notable crossbreed, mention in one book by one author, notable author or not, does not a breed make. -- Corvus cornix (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- But Google certainly does. Have you Googled Bassador or Bassetdor? These thousands of people can't be all wrong. Too bad we don't want to spend a little bandwidth to write an article about their mutts. Dog elitism does not a good encyclopedia make. -- Dr.K. (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Google hits are not notability. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for a fuller explanation. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Of course it isn't a prime argument for notability. But it is an indicator that this breed exists. I was replying to the does not a breed make comment above that seems to deny the existence of the breed. I don't think that we have to establish notability because if the breed is mentioned by the trainer to the stars Kilcommons, that's good enough for me. Now don't get me wrong. I know that I am facing an uphill battle. There seems to be a mindset here that if the dog is not the purest of breeds then there it goes. Under these conditions I cannot do much. But an encyclopedia should respect experts. Kilcommons is a top-notch expert. But if your mind is set against this breed no number of Kilcommonses will suffice. That's the sad truth. -- Dr.K. (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Google hits are not notability. See Wikipedia:Search engine test for a fuller explanation. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- But Google certainly does. Have you Googled Bassador or Bassetdor? These thousands of people can't be all wrong. Too bad we don't want to spend a little bandwidth to write an article about their mutts. Dog elitism does not a good encyclopedia make. -- Dr.K. (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- A sad corollary to the above is: Wikipedia is no place for mutts. Too bad because Kilcommons wrote a book about the mutts of America and detailed analysis of the individual characteristics of the main mutt breeds. Unfortunately no such specialised and detailed info would be found here if we eliminate this article and all the wonderful world of info it contains, including the top notch citation by an expert in the field and his heartwarming comments about the breed. What's even sadder is that I am writing all this knowing full well that this article appears to be condemned no matter how hard I try or what great arguments exist for its salvage. -- Dr.K. (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Delete I would point out that this breed is not recognized by the AKC, or any other kennel club for that matter. Also, I could find any reliable sources that deal with this breed apart from the book mentioned in the article. I also agree with prior precedent from the AFD mentioned above. --Cyrus Andiron 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bassetdors in popular culture
-
- Are The sims notable enough? Dr.K. (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Orlando Sentinel: A bassetdor appeared in a featured article in the Orlando Sentinel.[2] Dr.K. (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- The first one (from The Sims) is a user's creation, not a component of the game as shipped. The Orlando Sentinel article is from a blog associated from the paper, and it's a trivial reference - all it proves is that the name has been used.
For this article to survive, the one really important thing it'd need to do is to show that there's a significant community which deliberately breeds dogs of this specification. This is true of the cockapoo and goldendoodle, for example; is it true of the bassetdor? Zetawoof(ζ) 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I can't believe I'm having this conversation. These terms cockapoo, goldendoodle even bassetdor were completely unknown to me just a few days ago. I just wanted to look up some information about Barbara Woodhouse and now here I am discussing all these strange terms way out of my field. Thanks for your suggestion anyway. I understand where you are coming from, you are obviously an expert in this field and I am not, but why such a high standard? The breed exists. It is a recognisable name. It's got a few citations. Why not just leave it there? I don't think we should impose systematic breeding on top of the notable breed criteria. What do you think? Dr.K. (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are The sims notable enough? Dr.K. (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Advocate for the underprivileged. My brief stay in this canine section has given me new knowledge and insights about this neck of the Wikipedia woods. I admit even though I have a purebred beagle I am an absolute beginner in the subject of cross breeding, designer dogs, purebred dogs etc. But this is an advantage. Because I can think out of the kennel so to speak. Here is the dilemma. Do we confine ourselves to the regular canine suspects? What about the breeds nobody wants. Yes nobody wants them. No corgis, designer dogs, purebreds etc. here. They also have improbable names. Bassetdors or Bassadors. But they are the (Am)Bassadors for the underprivileged. Brian Kilcommons had a great idea. He was exposed to the dogs of the rich and famous all his adult life. Yet he chose to write a book about mutts. Why? Because as a kid he was rescued emotionally by a mutt. And when he became famous he wrote a book about these amazing creatures with the power to heal. What a story! I was so inspired I wrote the article about him. Not because he was famous but because he found emotional solace with the help of a mutt. Yet the same mutt cannot be represented in an article of its own under the current climate. Sure we can find any number of rules and regulations and quote all kinds of cutoffs so that we snip, cut and eliminate mutt articles here. But at what expense? These mutts exist. By definition no deliberate breeding or designer breeding can happen for them, otherwise they wouldn't be mutts. But mutts exist. And they have stories to tell and cute facts to show. The onus of systematic breeding is not an explicit Wikipedia notability requirement. If Kilcommons wrote a book about mutts to acknowledge their contribution to and place in society, Wikipedia should not be so elitist as to exclude them. Dr.K. (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I heartily agree. And I am very glad we have Mixed-breed dog to address that situation. But there is nothing to verify that this neologism is used by anybody in a reliable source, Corvus cornix (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Corvus for the feedback. It's nice to know people believe in this cause. But isn't Kilcommons or the Sentinel report reliable? Dr.K. (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Sentinel article merely verifies that the word exists, I don't think that's in doubt. And Kilcommons isn't a reliable source, since he made up the word. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Corvus, we are so close yet so far. I won't try to change your mind or argue the point since I know that's your opinion and I respect that. But I don't think Kilcommons invented the term. There is no evidence of that. I think the term diffused somehow in the culture and people accepted it to mean Basset x Labrador. That's the only way a name like that can appear as it cannot possibly be designed by science since no right thinking breeder would purposely cross a Lab with a Basset. Therefore we go back to my original argument that the wonderful and sometimes absurd miracles of nature will neither be accepted, nor given an official name by society. Consequently they will always remain unacknowledged and in the margins of society. Their fate in Wikipedia simply mimics their fate in society. It is some kind of encyclopedic euthanasia for this article. Dr.K. (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Think of it this way: I want to write an article. Where can I find information to write this article from? I need to find reliable sources. Now, then, what relible sources are there that you can write an article about Bassetdors from? The Sentinel mention isn't one. Can you find some? Corvus cornix (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd buy Mutts: America's Dogs (Hardcover) by Kilcommons and get the info from there. Would that be ok? Dr.K. (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Think of it this way: I want to write an article. Where can I find information to write this article from? I need to find reliable sources. Now, then, what relible sources are there that you can write an article about Bassetdors from? The Sentinel mention isn't one. Can you find some? Corvus cornix (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Corvus, we are so close yet so far. I won't try to change your mind or argue the point since I know that's your opinion and I respect that. But I don't think Kilcommons invented the term. There is no evidence of that. I think the term diffused somehow in the culture and people accepted it to mean Basset x Labrador. That's the only way a name like that can appear as it cannot possibly be designed by science since no right thinking breeder would purposely cross a Lab with a Basset. Therefore we go back to my original argument that the wonderful and sometimes absurd miracles of nature will neither be accepted, nor given an official name by society. Consequently they will always remain unacknowledged and in the margins of society. Their fate in Wikipedia simply mimics their fate in society. It is some kind of encyclopedic euthanasia for this article. Dr.K. (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Sentinel article merely verifies that the word exists, I don't think that's in doubt. And Kilcommons isn't a reliable source, since he made up the word. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Corvus for the feedback. It's nice to know people believe in this cause. But isn't Kilcommons or the Sentinel report reliable? Dr.K. (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (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.
