Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubby (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 of the debate was Redirect to Tacoma Narrows Bridge, contents have already been merged. Deathphoenix 16:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tubby (dog)

Dogcruft. Why are westerners more interested in pets than people anyway? MacRusgail 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Made me laugh, but seriously, don't ever post stuff about your dog on wikipedia Delete. Bobby1011 17:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dog that died 66 years ago... WP:PETS?--Isotope23 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nn-bio. Tagged as such. --Malthusian (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge.Redirect to Tacoma Narrows Bridge or Delete. It is already covered in the bridge's article. Poor Tubby. PJM 17:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Per above, terrified sole victim of "Galloping Gertie" but still just a mutt --Ruby 17:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't really consider this a merge candidate, and it's unreferenced anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Incindentally, it's already mentioned in Tacoma Narrows Bridge. PJM 19:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I drive over Sturdy Gertie every day, I could reference it, but it's going to be deleted. --Ruby 21:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Poor little non-notable Tubby. His mention at Tacoma Narrows Bridge should be more than sufficient. -- Krash (Talk) 21:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The Washington State Department of Transportation thinks Tubby is interesting enough to maintain a trivia page [1]. Given that the information is verifiable by a governmental department, what makes this non-notable? To me, it seems calling it "dogcruft" and saying that the article is about a "mutt" is a clear example of POV. -- hike395 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand the objective criterion for notability.. We have articles like Casula railway station, Sydney. Why is that article notable and not this one? --- hike395 08:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not convinced Casula station is that notable, but I suppose it's going to be around for a while. --MacRusgail 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How about as a compromise, we Redirect to a Tubby section in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article? -- hike395 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably the most logical thing to do. --MacRusgail 11:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect It's notable enough to be mentioned in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, but hard to justify that's it's notable enough for a standalone article which is very unlikely to be ever expanded. MartinRe 09:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per above. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Slight merge to Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Stifle 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Stifle Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Most certainly notable for involvement in Galloping Gertie's collapse. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. DenisMoskowitz 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Krash who's comments were unnecessary but also rather humerous. --Mmeinhart 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

To everyone who voted "Delete", if you agree with the compromise of redirecting to a Tubby section within the Tacoma Narrows Bridge article, please strikethrough your Delete vote and change to "Redirect". Thanks! -- hike395 18:57, 22 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.