Deletion of Chinese Foo Dog

Comment: It makes no difference whether this is an "official breed" name. The term is in common usage to refer to a specific type of dog. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Chinese+Foo+Dog%22&btnG=Google+Search The article is valid. The nomination is ,  and completely lacking in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COI||WP:AGF)

Comment: per |verifiability unless reliable sources that really refer to the current breed are actually provided. While there are many Ghits, there are currently no such sources, and given the controversial nature, the mere assertion of their existence would not be sufficient. Moreover many links seem actually refer to the story reported in Imperial guardian lions (so the redirect would be fine). The simple usage of a term for some type of dog would also be not warrant an article if the exact content cannot be verified. With respect to the nomination: while an outside view can point at an actual problem here, we should take care to not afterwards keep an accusative piece around either: so trim it to the essentials or hide it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)