Deletion of Dogs in religion

Comment: The difficulty with this article is it doesn't seem to have any sources at all -- |independent or otherwise -- demonstrating that the topic as such has been previously researched or been the subject of publications. Some people have noted that dogs have a role in particular religions or expressed religious ideas and feelings about or involving dogs, but so far as the sources identified so far tell us, nobody before this editor has written a comparative study of the role of dogs in religion or examined the general subject in anything like this article's attempted scope. I believe we need sources telling us that the subject itself has been previously researched to demonstrate |notability and avoid OR issues, particularly . So far as I know "validity" (the idea that a topic could or should or really ought to be the subject of  research and publication) is not one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The policy inclusion criteria require that the topic must have actually been the subject of actual previous research and publication. I believe we need sources demonstrating this to justify a keep. There are noncontroversial popular-culture subjects where this kind of issue isn't enforced strongly, but religion is a controversial subject with a lot of scholarly interest, and for this reason the core policy inclusion criteria have been enforced more strictly. We might be liberal about guideline issues like what we call a |reliable source and so forth, but SOMEONE must have previously written about this subject or else we bump squarely into OR, which is core policy. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:SYN||WP:RS||WP:NOR)