Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian Monster Pit

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. RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Monster Pit

[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)

Completely fails GNG and V, zero RS. Cavalryman (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, and one of the two cited "registries", the website ibcdogs.org, does not claim that it is a registry but a dog breeder. William Harristalk 09:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources qualify as RS - we must not allow WP to be used to promote fictitious breeds. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments recorded here. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk)
Delete - Unable to find any decent sources on the subject. Plus, I'm not sure that even were reliable sources available, that the subject is noteworthy enough to merit it's own article. ZBM-2 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 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.