Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bully breeds

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to pit bull. KrakatoaKatie 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bully breeds

Bully breeds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Appears to be a recent name used by some hobbyists to describe all bulldog/pit bull type dogs, or ones which are bred with abnormally large heads. Doesn't appear particularly notable as a term. No reasonable media/ASPCA/dog show coverage that I could find. I wanted to redirect it to whatever would be a good landing page for this sort of breed, but nothing appears to fit. So delete for no notability, and nowhere to really redirect the phrase too. It seems the phrase gets enough action to merit a redirect somewhere, but darned if I can spot where. Will happily withdraw deletion request if someone can dig up sourcing or a good place to send this page. Also reads like an advertisement for unaturally big-headed dogs, for what it is worth. • Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete copyvio of a magazine article (reproduced here). Tagged accordingly. (no attempt to back up its claim of "permission granted") Thomjakobsen 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I totally missed that. Deleting admin, please redirect as/if needed after copyvio version is gone. • Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CSD#G12, then redirect to pit bull (itself a vague basket term). This appears to be little more than to give a sheen of professionalism to dogfighting. --Dhartung | Talk 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pit Bull, which is itself a catchall. I've seen it in many other places and there are lots of ghits [1] [2] and so on, so I wouldn't characterize it as a copyvio, but it's really just a euphemism. As such, it doesn't merit its own article. Acroterion _(talk) 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The text of the article itself is a blatant copyvio, I've provided a link to the source content above. Thomjakobsen 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.