Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkie poos
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
— User:VanTucky, 19:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Verifiability)