Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacup Dogs Agility Association


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Teacup Dogs Agility Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG. An extensive search has found no sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, a few fleeting mentions can be found in some news articles and the like, such as this WSJ article, but nothing that “addresses the topic directly and in detail”. Cavalryman (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

* Support deleting I was also looking for sources on this organisation while editing another article, found nothing. --LoraxJr — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

* Support delete as per nominator. William Harris (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not seeing any reason to pass WP:GNG nor any other measure. No basic sources provided... would change my position if good sources were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent sources in the page, no sign of any in-depth coverage via Gbooks, Scholar or JSTOR, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: It's also a foundational copy-paste copyvio from its old website, so I've blanked it and listed it at Copyright problems/2020 December 30; if the article is to be kept it will need to be completely rewritten. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Searches did not turn up anything in-depth to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:17, 31 December 2020 (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.