Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pardog


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pardog

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable dog 'breed' with no mentions in notable secondary sources. Google turns up nothing but scrapes of this page and references from the breed's own site.  T K K  bark !  22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep Seems to come up a few times, mentioned on flickr in a photo, further searching could reveal more. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Flickr is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't appear to have sufficient coverage independent of the promoters to pass GNG. --99of9 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2013 (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.