Difference between revisions 427830454 and 427831412 on enwiki

< previous diff
User talk:Schneelocke
__FORCETOC__
<div style="padding:1em;border:4px dotted black"><font size="+1"><strong>NOTES</strong></font>

* Every page I protect is on the wrong version, of course, so to conserve valuable electrons, just leave a link to the page and a number from [[m:the Wrong Version|the list]]. Thanks.

* Please add new messages at the bottom of this page, and sign them using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Thank you!
</div>

(contracted; show full)

:: -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schneelocke]] ([[User talk:Schneelocke#top|talk]]) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
::: If it passes GNG, I don't see why it can't have an article, but a quick check is indicating that's not the case
 (may be debatable for this particular hybrid; it has a couple paragraphs in two "For Dummies" books if you're interested). Often the result in designer breed deletion discussions is "redirect to list of dog hybrids" (I'm not opposed to deleting, but obviously I have no power to do that or consensus even if I did). People are as interested in it as they are in the [[Pugapoo]] or [[Maltepoo]], and I sympathize, but there are so many crosses out there and so few reputable sources (Dog Breed Info is notorious); many of these are entirely unsourced. Designer breed articles are ''often'' (not always) created by single-purpose accounts, presumably because they own a [[Dorgi]] or [[Chug]]. That's fine, and I don't really have anything against crossbreeds, but that's separate from the question of whether or not they should all have articles.⏎
::: That being said, I wasn't personally involved in whatever discussion ended up in "Borador" becoming a redirect, but I'm not a ''hardcore'' deletionist and may have voted to keep it. If I find one more reasonably high-quality source I'll recreate it myself; how likely that is I can't say. &ndash; [[User:Anna|<span style="color:#4CBB17;">'''anna'''</span>]] 23:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)