Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canine Efficiency

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. Michig (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Efficiency[edit]

[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)

Not notable, no coverage except for trivial passing mentions. DferDaisy (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, insufficient notability/coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources. --Binod Basnet (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORGDEPTH not met (although despite the article claiming it's a non-profit organisation it may just be a blog); the only source is the primary source, which is a blog of two people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inane article about a non-notable blog, contravening WP:PROMO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2018 (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.