Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate yorkie

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. Everyone except maybe the nominator wants it kept in some form, if only as a redirect. There's no clear consensus here on what to do with it other than that, so I suggest you guys duke it out on the article talk page. Grandmasterka 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate yorkie

Chocolate yorkie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A "Chocolate yorkie" is a Yorkshire Terrier carrying a double recessive gene for a red or brown coat. [1] The result is a Yorkie whose color and coat do not conform to the breed standard. The gene will also often result in brown or liver pigmentation of the eye rims, nose and paw pads, another flaw in a Yorkie. AKC has many colors on the list as acceptable for a Yorkie, which means that some off-color Yorkies may be registered. However, the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America opposes the breeding of these dogs:

"Blue born puppies and red/chocolate born puppies are not acceptable colors of the Yorkshire Terrier. The Yorkshire Terrier should only be born Black/Tan and later turn to a dark steel blue. The blue born puppies & red/chocolate born puppies are recessive colors being passed to the progeny and a repeat breeding should never occur. Puppies of these colors should not be sold as “rare colors”. Yes hopefully it is very rare to get them, but these are totally unacceptable colors and it’s not so much that they are rare, as that they are not true representatives of the breed. . . A breeder should not knowingly breed a dog that is producing such a known defect. The breed could shortly become other than what it is. . . The standard laid down by the YTCA is very specific about the Yorkshire Terrier. It states the puppy should be born Black/Tan and change color to a Blue/Tan dog later in life." (From an article printed in TYT Magazine © 1998 by Cher Hildebrand.)

Breeders of Yorkshire Terriers generally agree that breeding of such off-color dogs should not be repeated. [2] Breeding of such faulty Yorkshire Terriers is usually done only by backyard breeders and puppy mills.

"Chocolate yorkie" is not a breed recognized by any kennel club. Internet searches come up with no breed club for Chocolate Yorkshire Terriers (or Chocolate yorkies as indicated in the title of this article) or Brown or Gold Yorkshire Terriers. The off-color is definitely a mutation to the Yorkshire Terrier breed and NOT in line with the breed standard. In any case, it is NOT a new breed - and the faulty color variation does not warrant a Wikipedia article. If anything, the occurrence of the faulty brown and red colors should be addressed in the Yorkshire Terrier article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epopp (talk • contribs)

• Rewrite The AFD included references! So what's the problem? Currently the AFD has more references than the article, so seriously, lets just replace the article with this AFD nomination. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite per Swatjester —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citicat (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
• Weak keep. It's a lousy little stub that fails WP:ATT, but the reason for deletion -- when you take out the long-winded wind-up -- seems to be "not a recognized AKC breed", which has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or standards. We're not the AKC catalog. If the breed is unofficial but notable there's no reason not to include it. But the article needs references. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. The fact that the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America doesn't like it would certainly be irrelevant if it were, for whatever reason, widely written about anyway. However, the sources given simply talk about "chocolate" Yorkshire Terriers as one of several possible nonstandard color variants. It seems this could be discussed adequately in the "Coat and color" section of the main Yorkshire Terrier article. —Celithemis 05:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per —Celithemis. I see nothing here that couldn't be added to the Yorkshire Terrier page. Every breed has colours that are non-standard, some for good reasons (some colours are tied to birth defects), some for reasons that have more to do with the dog's original job (white fur can be difficult to camouflage in the forest), some simply for aesthetic purposes. Do we need a separate article on every undesirable colour in all 430 or so known dog breeds? --Charlene 06:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per others. Not in any way independently significant. I thought this was about Yorkie bars :o) Guy (Help!) 13:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with SWATJester's rewrite idea--it will really be a better article with that information merged into it. Oppose Merge. Once rewritten, it would unbalance the "coat & color" section of the main Yorkshire Terrier article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. Just to be clear, the problem with this article was not that Chocolate yorkie is not a recognized breed. The point is that the article is misleading by saying that Chocolate yorkie is a breed. There is no support for this idea - virtually nobody (other than the author of this stub article) contends the "Chocolate yorkie" is a breed separate from the Yorkshire Terrier. Chocolate merely refers to the off-color. It is like a white Doberman or a Bernese Mountain Dog that lacks the signature white markings. Having a separate article for something that is merely a non-standard-color-Yorkie seems misleading in that it implies the off-color dog is a different breed or in some way significant. The only significance I can find to the Chocolate yorkie is mentioned in the reason for deletion.—Epopp 05:29, 21 March 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.