Deletion of Otto Middleton

Comment: this appears to be simply a rather silly attempt to see how far  & royal wedding mania can be taken. Does not appear to be even a reliable source confirming that the Middletons own this poor benighted pooch
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: essentially all the coverage of this dog relates to a single incident in which it ate an earring. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of pets of extremely notable people getting articles (such as Bo (dog) or Larry (cat)) but in this case the article violates  and  as the coverage relates to a single incident, amplified by the hype over the relationship/wedding. Arguing that the subject meets  doesn't counter this argument as the GNG is a necessary rather than a sufficient criterion for inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:GNG)

Comment: Dumb, not-newsworthy blurbs about earring-swallowing pets do not pass a common-sense interpretation of our notability guidelines.  This is shit that  is designed to prevent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Just not notable, no |coverage and not even any proof that the dog has the Middleton surname!! Doubt it's on a birth certificate or dog's pedigree or by deed of change of name|deed poll so if anything it ought to be Otto (dog of The Middleton's
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: with possible ''Redirect''. Does not pass ... and let's remember that notability is not inherited. It's touching to see that everyone cares about the Middleton family, but we must remember that notability is not temporary and we should take the long term view
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Sources are nothing more than |trivial. I think we have better topics to address, per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: until such time as Otto passes away. After that core policies on iographies of living pets will no longer apply, so that a more detailed account of the life and deeds of these domestic companions can be given. The 2001 obituary of Kelpie in the Daily Telegraph, contains what I assume were hitherto undisclosed facts about Kelpie and his forebear Susan: "Susan, the Queen's first corgi, earned notoriety by nipping the ankle of the royal clockwinder, and taking chunks out of the legs of various servants, a detective and a policeman. Kelpie is believed to have led a relatively blameless life - although there are suspicions that she may have disfigured a jigsaw, borrowed by the Queen from the National Jigsaw library
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: to Alleged canine consumption of nacreous gemstones incident of 2011, per . According to my reading of Wikipedia's animal-rights articles, dogs are people too and thus qualify for BLP protection. Also recommend strong sanctions against some editors here for https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShort_Brigade_Harvester_Boris&action=historysubmit&diff=427572190&oldid=426858219 blatant canvassing
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The subject has received |significant coverage in the media, meaning he is independently notable in his own right. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1111840/Pedigree-chums-Wills-Kate.html Whole articles have been written about this dog by the likes of the ''Daily Mail'', clearly demonstrating its notability as an |encyclpoedic topic. That article was written in 2009, well before the Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton‎|marriage of William and Kate, so obviously there is simply #Hot to discuss an Afd|no case to answer on the grounds of |inherited notability, as Catherine Middleton‎|Kate and Prince William|William were merely dating at the time. According to a ''Daily Telegraph'' article about Prince William's 28th birthday present to Kate, this dog caused her to be upset and embarrassed when he ate the earings. This sort of notice in |reliable sources clearly shows Otto is independantly notable and worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Because that's what notability is after all - getting noticed in sources. And there's loads of other sources out there also, I've seen them. Everything else can be fixed by adhering to our normal |editing policy - as such this Afd nomination was clearly |disruptive. If people want to delete this article just because Otto is a dog, they are showing their clear bias against dogs, are in danger of alienating our dog focused readership, and are clearly not adhering to our policies and guidelines which only care about how much coverage a topic gets. Merging this article into the family article is not an option, as that would give out the impression that we consider Otto more important than other Middleton family members not mentioned in the family article, which would be a clear violation of the |BLP policy. Kate is the future Queen of England, and therefore Otto is notable. Kate is now a Duchess also, so Otto is now part of the nobility, so this also shows he deserves an article here, as there are plenty of other articles here that exist purely because they are nobility. I came here to this article to read more about Otto, therefore he is obviously notable, as giving readers the information they want to know on the stuff they find interesting is what Wikipedia is for after all. Otto Middleton generates http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=898&bih=454&q=Otto+Middleton&aq=f&aqi=g-b1&aql=f&oq= 3,550,000 results in Google, therefore he is also clearly notable. We have other articles on Otto (dog)|dogs called Otto, therefore this Otto deserves an article too. If Wikipedia can delete an article on the family dog of the wife of the son of the son of the head of the British Royal Family, then the whole world will laugh at us. When this article was put up for deletion on the German Wikipedia, it was speedy kept, and the German media all laughed at English Wikipedia for even starting this Afd. Q.E.D., I have proven beyond doubt that Otto is notable according to our |policies and guidelines. And besides, it strikes me that being the pet of the Middleton family is an important enough topic for which we can |ignore those anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ENC||WP:AFD||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:RS||WP:PRESERVE||WP:DISRUPT||WP:BLP||WP:PG||WP:IAR)

Comment: per Skomorokh. We do have some articles on notable animals, but for me Otto doesn't get past . Surely there's room for him somewhere, just as the Elizabeth II page mentions the Queen's corgis
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)