Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepper the westie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mention may be made in another article independently.  Sandstein  09:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper the westie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet notability. Greek Legend (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the reason for the redirect Dan arndt? Neither article mentions the other and to me they seem unrelated. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Athomeinkobe: - sorry my bad I meant that a mention could be redirected to Virgin frequent flyer. Dan arndt (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. Although in that case one or two sentences about the dog would have to be merged into that section of the airline's article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking would be the best outcome. Dan arndt (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2016 (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.