Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endal (dog)

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 (as redirect to Endal). Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endal (dog)

Endal (dog) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Just some non-notable guy's non-notable dog. I almost can't believe this article exists, but yet, there it is. Also a probable copyvio. Cyde Weys 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NB - since this debate began and since the original was marked as a copyvio for a time - someone has created another version at Endal - Can someone who cares sort this.--Doc^g 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. We spoke about this [1]. Anyway - I have merged the two articles, and also again tried to make the article more acceptable to Wikipedia because there had been some vanity creep by the original author (bless him!). Provided the author can refrain from turning the article into a promotional tool for himself and his charity, the article is a candidate for inclusion. While the coverage on the animal has not been authoritative, scholarly or of a high quality, it has certainly been widespread, and has included some notable sources, such as the BBC, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Most of the coverage appears to be variations on press releases that the author has sent out, so there are aspects of this that are questionable. I would have liked to have seen an independent source reporting on the media coverage of the dog - without that the article might be open to an accusation of original research. However, the dog has, through the efforts of his handler, achieved some distinctions which have been recorded by reliable sources. I have sat on the fence a bit regarding this, but upon reflection I'm coming out in support. Keep. SilkTork 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It doesn't matter if the BBC uses press releases to gets its information, its their job to vet the information before publication, and fact check, thats why they are a reliable source, and a blog isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed at your comments, despite a dog being filmed by over three hundred film crews from around the world, having been awarded the highest award for peace time animal bravery, listed in the Times news paper as as one of the top ten most famous dogs of history you doubt his credabilty? Your comment that a highly decorated service man injured in service of his country is a non-notable person...that is below the belt and not what i would expect the author of this site to write. I am sure sniping at folk from the key board is something you consider an act of bravery? Endal and Allen 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't do "righteous indignation". It's just a dog. And I don't think you're realizing what I mean what I say "non-notable". I'm not trying to hit below the belt, it's just that millions of people have been awarded medals throughout the years for military service, and that alone doesn't make someone noteworthy. I'm not saying anything bad about you as a person; merely questioning whether your dog deserves an encyclopedia article. --Cyde Weys 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Righteous indignation

Though I digress from the original topic and having had a period of reflection I have felt I have to reply to part of your response to me... if only to be a voice for those that no longer have the opportunity to reply to your dismissive comment. I am not setting up any sort of conflict or personal argument with you.

I have come as close to being an engraved name on a war memorial in a sleepy English village than I care for, following being seriously injured during operation Desert Storm in 1991. Just because millions of people have been awarded medals over the years doesn't make each one of them any the less notable than the next person awarded a medal tomorrow. Each medal awarded reflects the special action of the individual it is awarded to, singling them out as "notable"! Any person who is prepared to lay his or her life down for the freedom and defence of others is indeed very notable. It Wikipedia was perfect there would be a section listing every medal holder that ever there was and their citation.. Why then do we hold veteran days around the world if not to recognise, the valour and selfless sacrifice of individuals and especially that each medal holder has made for our freedom that we enjoy today.

Millions have fought over the years for the right of people to live a free life from under the rule of tyrants and dictators, regardless of creed, colour or religion. Individuals have stood apart from the crowd and fought for a just cause not for praise or adulation but because it is morally the right thing to do. I can't sit in the wheelchair claiming that I have fought to up hold the rights of people to live in a free society where everyone has a voice and a right that it should be heard, but then dictate what that voice must say. What you have said though in your throw away comment is hurtful and belittles the notable actions of many who have made the supreme sacrifice or for those injured like myself and those who have survived intact. There is a famous saying engraved on the wall of the Imperial War museum in London "War only ends for the dead"..... these words I ask you to reflect on!

Tomorrow the papers will list more names of the fallen in the current conflict around the would, today's news - tomorrow's fish and chips paper...but every individual is notable for upholding the right for us to live in a free and democratic world.... Notable..each and everyone...most definitely.... yes! Endal and Allen 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• When your quality of life depends on the abilty and devotion of a dog, you will understand

Endal is not just a dog Endal and Allen 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I understand why that makes the dog important to you, but it still does not make it important to other people, or to an encyclopedia of general knowledge. I'm sorry. If I ever do need a service dog, I'm sure I will appreciate it, but I still won't think it's notable enough to deserve to be in encyclopedias. --Cyde Weys 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Certain major medals, such as the Medal of Honor, are automatic notability. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep while removing any copyvios found. Clearly a noteworthy animal given the sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep yes, remove the copyvios, but there are several sources testifying that this animal is notable. Hut 8.5 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep remove the apparent copyvios but retain the substance. definitely notable, sources report the same. would like to point out that said copyvios were in fact written by allen himself (as claimed), so it isn't really copied. of course, this would probably be difficult to prove. rm copyvios, but keep article. xC | ☎ 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, this should never have been afd'd. Clerks. 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment rather than the righteous indignation of the inclusionists, will someone please take the article in hand and make it remotely encyclopedic. I'm fed up with 'keep and let someone clean this up' votes. If you want it, have it. If you can't be arsed, then let's delete it.--Doc^g 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Are we going to put in every animal that won a dog show as well? How about best groomed poodle, 1992? There is so much wrong with this article--the guy wrote it about his own dog, which is pretty much like writing about yourself (considering that the dog cannot write), and that is against our policy. There will be no way to learn what happens with said dog ten years from now--I doubt any newspaper would publish an obit. Let's please get back on track with writing an encyclopedia. Danny 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Autobiographical or COI editing does not mandate deletion. In this case, we are looking at an encyclopedia - we have a subject with a wealth of source material to write from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Having source material does not mean that it merits an article. If it was truly worthy of inclusion, however, it is likely that someone other than the dog's owner would have started the article. Danny 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I have tidied up the article. The notability is the amount of media coverage that Parton has generated - and that is certainly enough to satisfy Wiki requirements, regardless of personal feelings about the worthiness of the material. SilkTork 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you also replaced the copyvio, so I've removed it again.--Doc^g 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:COPYVIO WP:OWN WP:COI WP:MOS. I've no objection to someone neutral writing an article about this dog. But this cut and paste of the owner's apparent puffery isn't where to start. I say again, if anyone wants this saved, then go help the guy write an encyclopedic article, and I'll happily rescind this vote.--Doc^g 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Done and done. Still needs some expansion, but it's the best I can do under current circumstances. I edit conflicted a few times, so I may have screwed up a process in the process. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I would like to thank everyone for their comments either for or against Endal's page. I was requested to enter Endal into the famous dog category (yes it is true Endal can't write it himself) little knowing what I was starting or getting into. I have had great difficulty reducing down all the source and reference documentation but would like to thank all those that have given me editorial direction. Endal fame has been based around his part in my rehabilitation and recovery and enablement over the last ten years. Being voted the Dog of the Millennium and being awarded the first ever Animal George cross surely is notable? The other awards and achievements bolster Endal's case. Resolving the argument over authorship/copyright is like "nailing jelly to the wall" and beyond me. Endal and Allen 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, we are back to square one here. We have an article blanked as a probable copyvio, and certainly in an unencyclopedic tone. We seem to have a majority, if not a consensus that the subject merits an article. We have at least two users willing to work on a new article, but unable to as the currrent one is a disputed copyvio. Does anyone have an objection if I: 1) close this afd as 2) delete the current article as a probable copyvio and no use anyway 3) allow the editors who want to write a new one to do so 4) leave it open if anyone wants to afd it again once written (I won't care either way).--Doc^g 20:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Copyright now cleared.--Doc^g 22:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's no real notability there, and most of the references are inapplicable to the specific dog. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new article here: Endal as I had already done most of the work before the copyright violation tag was placed on it, but got beaten to the bell by an edit conflict. SilkTork 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete on balance. Notability is borderline (might just about be considered notable for a dog) but this is so plainly self-contgratulatory pap by the owner that it is embarrassing. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of good sourced reference material from the BBC and the Guardian. Meets all criteria for WP:Bio. If someone thinks its a Copyright Violation, then reword that section. Remember, you can't copyright facts. The outside press determines notability, not Wikipedians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• At least the copyright status is cleared up now (see the note where the author releases it under the GFDL at the bottom of this page). --Cyde Weys 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• NB see also Endal--Doc^g 23:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Guy=non-notable; His dog=notable. I wasn't expecting much from an article about a dog, but this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. While WP:BIO seems to focus on humans, Endal would clearly pass that guideline or WP:N. Alansohn 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep certainly enough reliable sources here to suggest notability, especially considering its a dog. Delete and merge into Endal which is a more encyclopedic version, not actually sure any merging is even needed. Russeasby 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment above I was suggesting delete in merge to Endal when it was at this point [2], but the current version is hardly much better then the origonal Endal (dog). Russeasby 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment see the List of famous dogs. Beside Endal, one other service dog has a redirect, but none yet have articles. The dogs in the lists of winners of races and competitions in WP also do not have articles, though many of them would no doubt prove to have sources--there are several magazines that cover dog shows. Even mass media covers some of the shows. Just an informative comparison--not suggesting any precedents. DGG 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Endal. Notable, referenced, encyclopedic. — Athaenara 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. People have been writing about the dog. It is what it is. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep redirected to Endal. Lot of press coverage for a dog. —Celithemis 03:40, 7 May 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.