Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Beazley (dog) (2nd nomination)

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. I'm closing this as "keep" for 3 reasons....

1. The nominator is a sockpuppet of a banned editor and his rationale did not make sense anyway. We have no guideline/policy called WP:NEED.

2. Most of the delete !votes were based on the fact that the article is a stub and the unlikelihood of the article being expanded. This was countered by the suggestion that there are sources. Those could be used to expand the article if someone wants to do it.

3. There were suggestions to redirect and I almost closed it that way. (and there's nothing keeping that from being done as an editorial decision) but I felt that since this discussion was started by a banned editor that maintaining the status quo was the best call.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Beazley (dog)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We don't need an article on one of over a billion dogs in the United States regardless of being owned by former President George W. Bush. SeventhBase (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like it or not, the sheer number of puff pieces that get done on presidential pets gives them loads of secondary source coverage with which to meet our notability guidelines. You haven't actually advanced a policy or guideline based reason to delete this. Gigs (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this article says about the dog is that it belongs to George W. Bush. Is that enough for notability? I thought notability was not inherited. JIP | Talk 09:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google of the article's name shows multiple news reports across several years regarding this dog. Simply because the article is a stub is not a reason to delete. Miyagawa (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This dog has done nothing notable apart from being owned by a notable person (unlike say, the dogs here). So claim to notability is entirely inherited. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article doesn't say the dog has ever actually done anything at all. I suppose the article was only written because someone thought everything associated with George W. Bush was automatically notable. JIP | Talk 21:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The current state of the article is irrelevant to notability. The hundreds of news articles and secondary source coverage is relevant. The dog even starred in a short film, which drew plenty of secondary source coverage. Gigs (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential pets. -- œ ^™ 18:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OlEnglish, and while we're at it, amend the hatnote at Miss Beazley to point to the presidential pets article as well.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you say "per someone" when that person didn't even offer a rationale? Gigs (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's easy, I just type and the words appear on the screen.—Seriously though, by "redirect per OlEnglish", I meant, "redirect to the target that OlEnglish suggests". I probably should have been a little clearer, sorry.—S Marshall T/C 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was hinting that you might offer a rationale as to why a subject with such a massive amount of direct secondary source coverage somehow fail notability. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to be clear I'm not claiming the subject fails notability.. But can this article ever be expanded beyond a couple sentence stub? I think that the limited amount of encyclopedic content that's worth writing about, along with its refs, can easily fit into the entry at the Presidental pets article, and this can redirect straight there. Problem solved. -- œ ^™ 05:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by OlEnglish, with no prejudice if any editor wishes to write a full-length article. Presidential pets are notable. This is, in the end, a nation of pet-lovers. Ray^Talk 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reason to delete has been provided. Wikipedia articles are not based upon need - we record information for its own sake, not for some particular purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Per OE and S Marshall. While Presidential pets always get press attention, a section in the article on pres. pets or the particular president who owned them is a better way to present the information. As has been noted, they don't really "do" anything, unlike say, the First Lady, who usually has her own "pet" causes she tries to promote. Unless Ms. Beazly was hitting the bricks campaigning on behalf of Bob Barker to spay and neuter your pets... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential pets, unlikely to be expanded enough to warrant its own article. jonkerz ♠ 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? It's a one sentence article about a dog. What more is there to write? If there isn't anything more to say about it, why fight to keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.95.107 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. A sentence isn't an article and it's unlikely ever to be expanded. Simply not notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.