Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyi-Leo

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 — Caknuck 19:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyi-Leo

Kyi-Leo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I listed this for speedy deletion as an ad (the "Registered" mark is a giveaway), but the CSD tag was removed by another user without comment, so I bring this here. Corvus cornix 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reason the registered mark was included is because the name of the dog breed "Kyi-Leo" appears to be registered by the original breeders ... Mrs. Linn - for the sake of securing the name from other uses. However, since there is no alternative name for the breed I had to refer to its actual name and decided that including the registered mark was only appropriate ... not an advertisement in the least. Since it is the name that is registered and not the breed itself, how then do I refer to the breed without the legalities involved? --Davmid055 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot a online sources are available and it could easily be argued that all dog breeds are inherently notable if they survive beyond the initial ancestors. CIreland 04:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Many notable products have the R tag. (In spite of the behavior noted below)DGG 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the ed. who introduced this page has been trying to speedy other articles in apparent response to revenge for it being first speedied, and then listed here. I've removed the tags and given him a strong warning. since modifed DGG 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In response to the allegations that I was posting speed deletion tags out of revenge for having my article posted for such, I honestly wasn't. I read through the deletion policies thoroughly and read that we are encouraged to "Visit a Special:Randompage and jump into the rabbit hole!" to get involved with Wikipedia. So I did, and found articles that blatantly meet the speedy deletion criteria. It was nothing to do with revenge and I was only trying to get more involved in Wikipedia by bringing to attention some other pages - nothing to do with my own. I apologize if this was inappropriate but I do not believe I was doing it in bad-faith. --Davmid055 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Glad to have the assurance. I seem to have used too strong a word, and I've changed my comment DGG 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that "speedy keep" is an indication that you feel that the nomination was a bad faith nomination. Do you really believe that? And, according to the MoS, Wikipedia should not use the R tag. Corvus cornix 18:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a clearly mistaken nomination, and used the Speedy just in response to that--not that I thought anything remotely like bf, --I simply treated it as an error, and consider a speedy keep suitable for correcting an error. I may have been influenced by your prior use of a speedy tag on the article. I'm glad to be corrected myself about the use of R, but a single-character MOS error is no reason to delete,DGG 21:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 09:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion given, and there are plenty of independent sources.
  John Vandenberg 08:11, 23 June 2007 (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.