Deletion of Pet naming

Comment: The topic is very notable as there are numerous books devoted to the topic.  And one can immediately find other relevant sources such as the http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30615FC3D551B7A93C2AB178CD85F408285F9 NYT - ''Naming your pet dog (is) often a sacred rite''.  The contrary opinions just seem to be blatant cases of , unsupported by neither fact nor policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: is well sourced, despite the fact it is a stub. There are entire books written on the subject, as you can see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pet%20names&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp here. This goes far beyond the requirement for . The rationale behind the deletion is nothing more than  ("just not notable"), while the other comments appear to be , |PERMAJORITY, and |Just unencyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:JNN||WP:PERNOM||WP:MAJORITY||WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC)

Comment: Those who claim lack of sources seem to ignore Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. This article is just a stub, and has a great potential for expansion. If you go to Barnes and Noble, you will find at least several books entirely devoted to this topic. That is by far enough to meet |Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Those who say this doesn't appear simply |personally not to like the idea of this article. The dicdef argument is not enough to delete it either. Look at #DICDEF. It says ''Definitions. Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible.'' This says they should be ''expanded'', not deleted. Being short or being a stub does not mean it is a dicdef. Yes, it is true that the majority now say it should be deleted. But these are mostly just votes. The keeps here have much better points
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDL||WP:NOT)