Deletion of Yorkie poos

Comment: My sources satisfy "|Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."  I'll also point out that if Amazon sells calendars, license plates, t-shirts, and stuffed animals specific to Yorkie Poos, that's clear evidence of notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Unfortunately, one-sentence mentions and other small sections of larger works are trivial. None of the sources focus solely and significantly on the breed, and needless to say, Amazon.com cannot be used as a reliable source to |verify encyclopedic information. If no reliable way of verifying factual assertions exists, and no published sources exclusively and comprehensively deal with the subject, then having an article is inappropriate. The commercial exploitation of something is not a reliable barometer of notability; case in point, there are hundreds of thousands of pornographic sites in every language focusing on any bizarre fetish imaginable. But we do not consider them notable. Popularity and commercial marketability are not synonyms for the concept of notability. I would also like to indicate that this would seem to be a  issue with user Billgordon, as every single contest to a related prod he has made so far included the edit summary "'''No to deletionism
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:POINT)

Comment: Yep. I guess someone could pull up some |Reliable sources, but the point is, is that the breed by itself does not appear very  even with sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)