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. There is now clear consensus that there are insufficient reliable sources DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Terr[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any proof it exists as any kind of notable breed; a cursory WP:SET for both Gull Terr and Pakistani Bull Terrier turns up nothing but user-submitted content and seo scrapes; and a search on my library's book search turned up nothing. TKK ^{bark !} 22:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I found this, this, ~~and this~~ as sources; none of them seem particularly scholarly but I think they at least establish that this breed is notable and it seems fair to assume that there are more sources on foreign-language websites or offline in Pakistan itself. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an fyi, DogBreedInfo is not a reliable source. We've (as in the people at WP:DOG)been yanking it from articles as we come across it. --TKK ^{bark !} 15:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've stricken that part of my comment. What are your thoughts on Dog Breeds Expert and Molosser Dogs? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally avoid Molosser Dogs since it's almost entirely user-submitted content, but I don't really know the official standing on it (I think the fact that it's user submitted means it fails WP:RS but again, I'm not sure). As far as Dog Breeds Expert, I have no idea. It doesn't look reliable at the cursory once-over I gave it but I'm not sure. I can leave a comment on the WP:DOG talk page and see what they think on the two of these if you'd like? --TKK ^{bark !} 04:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply - I didn't realize Molosser Dogs was user-submitted content, that would indeed make it unreliable. In that case the only source left is Dog Breeds Expert, and I don't feel comfortable voting keep on the basis of one source only, so whether it's reliable or not I'm changing my vote to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it would seem the potential sources have each been raised, considered and set aside in a fairly neutral and collegial manner. A search of my own turned up nothing more than YouTube videos and classified ads. I accept the breed exists but I can't see a depth of coverage that would confirm notability. The fact that this was nominated by a member of WP:DOG would indicate (to me at least) that the checks and searches of those with more access to relevant sources still turned up nothing usable. Stalwart111 01:39, 24 February 2013 (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.