Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pom-a-poo

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 and redirect to poodle hybrid. — TKD::Talk 09:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pom-a-poo

Pom-a-poo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

procedural nomination Article previously deleted via WP:PROD, Jan 2007, then tagged again for PROD-mediated deletion in Aug 2007. The first PROD held the reasoning "non-notable dog breed, verifiability concerns" while the second PROD held that "Other than membership in American Hybrid Canine Association, which only entails a $5 fee was paid, the dog has received no specific "significant coverage" in reliable, published sources. Thus, it fails notability criteria." The article was also party to a withdrawn multi-article AFD from April 2007. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and salt redirect per VanTucky below. If this article keeps reappearing after being repeatedly deleted, it should stay deleted. =Axlq 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to poodle hybrids as prod nominator. While poodle hybrids in general are very notable, this hybrid has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and is not notable. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Poo dogs are non-notable mutts. MarkBul 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Not to poo-poo the pom-a-poo, but it's not notable. Pursey 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and make the redirect as VanTucky. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with poodle hybrids. Insufficiently notable for its own article -- but since there are some reliable sources, we should include whatever we can take from them there rather than just redirecting. --TheOtherBob 16:46, 4 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.