Deletion of Fairfield Industrial Dog Object

Comment: Public art is notable.  Significant coverage is likely to be able to be found if you look hard enough - and a google search isn't looking very hard at all. Libstar, how many times must we tell you that google searches for things from the late 1990s and early 2000s (especially Australian) are not covered adequately on google news? Remember it says that  isn't a reason for deletion either.   The statue was erected in 2000, so it would make sense that significant coverage would have happened then.  As an example, {{AFL Ess}} dominated the Australian Football League that year, so why are their only http://www.google.com.au/webhp?hl=en#q=essendon+afl&hl=en&prmd=imvns&sa=X&ei=WIfnToqQOsWNiAfF-p3dCA&ved=0CBoQpwUoCw&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2000%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2001&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2a65d09baff23c8b&biw=1680&bih=925 2 GNews hits from 2000 about Essendon AFL?  Please stop trying to delete things based solely on google hits
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: just passes the , but passes it does, after its improvements.  It could be argued, "It's ludicrous! It's a  a publicly-funded folly!  It's a silly waste of rate-payers' money!" Those are reasons to improve the article, not delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per the excellent expansion and sourcing by Bilby. Has multiple articles in ''The Age'', the ''Herald Sun'', ''Artlink Magazine'' and some local papers. Meets the |general notability guideline in my book
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)