Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiweenie (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Dog crossbreed. This is my first close of an AfD. If I got it wrong and I did a WP:BADNAC, please tell me and I will try not to fuck up second time round😄 (non-admin closure) !dave 09:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiweenie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable dog hybrid TKK! bark with me! 18:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a feasible redirect to List of dog crossbreeds, depending on the outcome of this RfD. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dog crossbreed. In regards to that giant crossbreed RfD, while we don't necessarily need a redirect for every "let's jam two breed names together" crossbreed name, this is a pretty well known crossbreed [1]. Google News shows many articles about individual dogs that refer to those dogs as chiweenies. As those articles are about individual dogs, not the type of dog they are as a type of dog, they certainly aren't anything that would help us build a separate article on the crossbreed, but they do demonstrate that "chiweenie" is a quite plausible search term, and that's one of the reasons we have redirects. Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dog crossbreed. I removed all the of the unsourced and, truthfully, not terribly helpful material. As I look at how scant it is now I don't think it offers much being a standalone article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.