Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elo dog

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. Tone 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elo dog

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. Any animal with a trademarked name is an instant red flag for me. I could locate only a single attributable passing mention on Google books, not enough to establish notability. Perhaps in time a kennel club will recognise these dogs and they will become notable, but the breeders will need to relinquish their trademark (and their business model) so for now TOOSOON. Cavalryman (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A topic has to be notable in order for it to be allowed in Wikipedia; the Eurohound isn't. Cavalarious (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Infantry-ician (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This dog gets a mention in the "dog heavy-weight": Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition by Adam Miklosi, which confirms what went into the mix only. It could be argued that it fails GNG on the "multiple sources are generally expected" criterion. A full read of the article and its related links indicates that this article is used for promoting a business-related purpose. William Harristalk04:26, 29 November 2019 (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.