Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Foo Dog


 * 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 delete per WP:V. Sandstein 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Foo Dog

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

''Lengthy nomination that mainly consisted of complaints about one particular dog dealer redacted because of WP:BLP concerns. Sandstein 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)''

tundraline


 * Keep - Reason to delete seems to be based entirely on original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't find any valid site or source for this dog other than a group of sites with similar wording, structure and prose. No valid reliable source seems available. Also, original research can be reason for a AfD, just not an article. Also, WP:Hoax and WP:SPAM are two valid reasons as well. Spryde 14:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think this AfD reads more like a hoax and original research instead? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above and redirect to Imperial guardian lions. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - It makes no difference whether this is an "official breed" name. The term is in common usage to refer to a specific type of dog. The article is valid. The nomination is WP:OR, WP:COI and completely lacking in WP:AGF. --Evb-wiki 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In that google link, which one of those would be considered a reliable source? Rarebreed is a site which nearly anything can get listed on (look at the disclaimer at the bottom). I agree with Starblind and it should be redirected the the Imperial Lions. Spryde 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While not AKC "reliable", I find the Continental Kennel Club site, Dog-Names.org.uk and Dog-Breeds-infosite.com (among the 40K+ g-hits) acceptable to show common usage. --Evb-wiki 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not recognized as an "official breed" by the AKC. I find it more likely that the nominator is simply upset that he or she got fooled by this Mr. (who appears to be attempting to create a new breed but not informing customers it's not an official breed). M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Google News brings up about 40 hits, and Google Scholar a couple so it's likely that reliable sources will exist... but I can't read most of the useful looking ones without paying so it's only a weak keep from me. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not being an AKC recognized breed is no reason to delete. See: Jack Russell Terrier. Smashville 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 05:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per verifiability unless reliable sources that really refer to the current breed are actually provided. While there are many Ghits, there are currently no such sources, and given the controversial nature, the mere assertion of their existence would not be sufficient. Moreover many links seem actually refer to the story reported in Imperial guardian lions (so the redirect would be fine). The simple usage of a term for some type of dog would also be not warrant an article if the exact content cannot be verified. With respect to the nomination: while an outside view can point at an actual problem here, we should take care to not afterwards keep an accusative piece around either: so trim it to the essentials or hide it.--Tikiwont 07:56, 13 September 2007 (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.