Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bordoodle


 * 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 speedy deleted by Dlohcierekim as G7. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Bordoodle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Full of PoV and probably a vehicle for the linked pet shop. Sources are not reliable and are not national media coverage. Previously PRODed, the concern was: ''Not notable, yet another cross breed. Refs are to Wikipedia or personal breeder website (image used is stamped with breeder logo too). Searches only come up with other personal breeder web sites.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. In common with many of these "breeds" sources are the personal websites of people trying to sell pups and unreliable SPS/SEO sites. In this particular case, there are presently two breeder sites used as refs providing conflicting information: stating "ideal for families and children" at one point yet "These are not dog suggest for first time dog owners or families with small children. Both border collies and poodles can be dominant and not tolerant of small children." is given later. The registries are not nationally recognised kennel clubs. It is full of POV like the smartest dogs in the world etc etc SagaciousPhil  - Chat 07:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Cute dog, less cute spam. A WP:BEFORE search indicates no coverage by WP:RS at all. 11:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC) '


 * Delete: WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". What makes Mountain Rose Borderdoodles, Next Day Pets, or Safari Doodles reliable sources? And how can any of the sources be considered "independent of the subject"? There's simply no notability demonstrable. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * have deleted per WP:CSD per this edit, misplaced on AfD page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.