- 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 Snowball Keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nigger (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see any reason why this particular dog is notable on his own. While some individual dogs (including Fala, Seaman, Balto, and Barry) can be notable on their own if they have had enough of an impact on history, I don't think this one is notable enough to have his own article. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, there is at least one other, possibly more notable dog with the same name (as another user pointed out on the article's talk page). Stonemason89 (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he was important enough to be portrayed in a feature film, and his name was connected to the raid, which is part of WW2 folklore. The offensiveness of his name in modern times is not a reason to delete the article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The dog's portrayal in film may not be sufficient to warrant an independent article, but the military and censorship aspects add a dimension of encyclopedic interest. — C M B J 08:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I say that due to the fame of the dog and the controversy about the name, the page should be kept. BenderRobot (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Really quite famous, for a dog. Chris (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But maybe the title should be edited to "nigga" so as to be less offensive. 68.45.109.70 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't the dog's name. If we change the name to be less offensive, then we're rewriting history. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but give some weighting in the lead paragraph to the subsequent controversy in the film portrayals. The dog's notability as a mascot is debatable, but the subsequent controversy over whether you can use the name in a film is clearly covered in numerous third-party sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I definitely don't like the name, but the article is well-sourced and I am fully aware of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An interesting article. I personally don't think we should be putting up articles under pet names, but it seems to be well established by precedent. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: presence in feature film, presence in codename for the Dambusters raid, subsequent controversy of the use of the name in the contemporary remake, all combine to make this a notable subject.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:53, 9 August 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.