Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utonagan


 * 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. Courcelles 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Utonagan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Not notable. Unrecognized by all major dog associations, the only references I can find to them besides casual discussion and those sites that seem to 'scrape' dog breeds out of everywhere are on the two sites created to 'promote' these as a breed instead of mutts that look like wolves. They don't even have the notability as Puggles, which are a similar in that they are unrecognized mutts.  Ti ku ko  02:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as above; this is not a breed. It also looks (to me) as if credence is trying to be gained by quoting BVA/KC and until very recently the lead actually stated 'this is a breed of dog'. Two of the references lead to the same article, another is a 'you tube' promotional video. Unfortunately, there are quite a number of articles like Utonagan - Northern Inuit dog is another example.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  10:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm actually the person who changed it from 'is a breed of dog' to 'is a crossbred dog' before deciding an AfD would be more applicable. -- Ti ku ko  19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:GNG, article is almost entirely unreferenced, can't find any mention of them on the major dog association sites, including The Kennel Club which is pretty significant for a dog bred in the UK. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Tamaskan Dog. Altered Walter (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The fact that it isn't a recognized breed is meaningless, since some cross breeds are notable.  The fact that there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject matter is what makes it fail GNG.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 16:49, 15 December 2012 (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.