Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olde English Bulldogge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Cbrown1023 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olde English Bulldogge

Olde English Bulldogge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An attempt to re-create a type of dog that died out. An attempt by very few people. And not recognised by the Kennel Club, so they formed their own kennel club to approve it, but it diesn't do other breeds. Looks like advertorial. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - This dog breed exists and is significant enough to warrant an wikipedia entry, see the external links at the bottom of the article or perform a google search to confirm it. Headphonos 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Existence is not significance. See WP:N. Where are the multiple non-trivial external sources? Guy (Help!) 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable information, see [1] --Docg 13:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ads.aspx? "Do you want to see your own ad in this section"? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No [2]. I think that just means the ads beow the article.--Docg 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The British Bulldogge is definitely a hoax. However, this breed isn't. Which created kennel club are you referring to? Also, that type of dog didn't die out, it evolved into the modern bulldog. And though registry with the Continental Kennel Club proves very little (they'd accept any group of dogs that may possibly, vaguely resemble each other to be a "breed") resgistry with the American Rare Breed Association is far more significant[3]. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe merge. Not notable. All sources derive from the club breeding this dog. The organizations which recognize the breed appear to recognize any breed which has an organization supporting it. Until there are sources discussing this breed from other than from breeders of this dog, it's not a notable-enough breed for its own article. It may deserve a mention on the bulldog page. Argyriou (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Should probably also look at deleting Winston Olde English Bulldogge. Argyriou (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC) changed vote to neutral, see below. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Headphonos. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 01:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or possibly compress into a solid paragraph and merge into another bulldog article. Apparently the breed is only recognised by those trying to breed them. When the AKC recognises it, an article will make more sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

*Keep for now, possibly could merge in future. Article appears to be the work of good faith editors and is reasonably encyclopedic. Addhoc 19:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The article is actually a pretty good article about a non-notable subject. There are two or three breeders breeding this dog, and there seem to be no mentions of this dog by anyone other than the breeders. If that changes, or if someone can supply a reference not related to the breeders, I'd be happy to change my vote to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. Having taken another look, I think I was overly impressed with the references and external links. Also, I probably misread the nom and was primed for a WP:ADVERT instead of a mundane WP:N. The references don't appear to be about this breed [4][5], the external links are reasonably impressive, but not entirely convincing. A Google search lists plenty of the external links type and Ebay adverts for puppies, but again doesn't really convince. I'll strike my 'vote'. Addhoc 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; here are some sources: [6]
    "While his lineage is unknown, he appears to be an Olde English Bulldogge, authorities said Tuesday. That is a fairly uncommon and new breed"
    "Glorasteen White, 54, was charged in February after Norfolk authorities seized an 80-pound Olde English Bulldogge named Sire at her house on Elkin Street."
--NE2 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That is not a source, or a reliable one at that, for the purposes of an encyclopedia. This source only verifies that the breed exists—actually it doesn't even do that, it only verifies that a layman was told the breed exists or thought the breed to exist. Regardless, it does not substantiate anything in the article. —Centrx→talk • 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - It boggles the mind at how little knowledge people have about a particular subject, yet they feel compelled to participate. -:) Headphonos 11:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like an attempt by the breeder community to create notability for their dogs.Montco 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - What are you basing this statement on ? If we use your logic we would have to delete all dog breed articles and all other animal breed articles. Headphonos 11:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I am not an anonymous user and I did not spam and I did not advertise, I advised members of the Wiki dog project of the deletion +tags so that they can participate in the proceedings. Headphonos 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This is exactly the type of thing that ticks me off about Wikipedia. An overexhuberant, proffessional wiki cop article deleter, trying for a barnstar. As if Wikipedia has more credibility than the OEB. This is a legitimate breed and there are A LOT more than 3 or 4 breeders of this dog. BTW, I don't breed or even own one of these dogs but I'm not so stupid as to think that it's not a legitimate breed. It breeds true and has done so for over 30 years.I think if anything, the article needs to be watched and improved to protect it against advertorial abuse.User:DHollerman
  • Comment - according to this link [7] there are 13 breeders, which is more than 3, but possibly not enough for their own article. Also, Guy describes himself as "surly", which in my humble opinion is more accurate description than "overexhuberant"... Addhoc 17:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are no existing guidelines for notability in dogs, which I regret, so I have to assume that the only basis for deletion is lack of verifiability, which is not the case here. Certainly, we can always merge the page to another one later. Also, I would like to join in welcoming DHollerman to wikipedia with his/her first signed contribution above, and hope to hear more from this editor in the future. Badbilltucker 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment according to WP:N "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". Personally, I'm not convinced this has been complied with. Addhoc 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep — The two books cited on the article page discuss a very real trend by breeders to move away from the physical ailments of the modern English Bulldog. The Olde English Bulldogge is a very big part of that trend as it is one of a number of alternative bulldog breeds (e.g. the Victorian Bulldog) that exist now. Read the two books if you don't believe me. The books and authors have been cited on the front article page. I won't do your work for you. This breed and other alternative bulldog breeds have existed for many years. The person who originally posted that this article should be deleted believes that recognition by major kennel clubs is a necessary criterion for having a Wikipedia article. If we follow that logic, then you all better be prepared to remove dozens of articles on various dog breeds and hybrid breeds. My goodness, the Shar Pei was not even recognized by the AKC until 1991. But anyone with any true knowledge about canine breeds knows that the Shar Pei has been in existence long before the AKC and its supporters were ever around. For the record, I am not a breeder or even a pet owner. I discovered this breed through my own research because one day I probably would want to own a pet. This article should NOT be deleted and should be free for any person to peruse. Prospective pet owners are entitled to have as much information as possible available to their fingertips in order to make a wise and informed choice. This article should never have been nominated for deletion. User:Ranger Rabbit
  • Comment - neither book mentions this breed [8][9]. Also Google books doesn't turn up a single mention [10]. Addhoc 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The 160-page Jenkins/Mollett book details the current English Bulldogs origins, its serious health issues and the creation of Victorian Bulldog and the Olde English as viable alternatives. READ the book if you don't believe me. And by the way, a simple Google search is not research. You're not going to find information on rare dog breeds in that fashion.User:Ranger Rabbit
  • Yes, I know the book has 160 pages, because this information is given in the link I provided. Also, yes I know the book explains the creation of the Victorian Bulldog breed for the same reason. I haven't read the book and I'm not convinced you have either. Could you provide an extract? Overall, I'm not convinced there are multiple non-trivial external sources; I suggest you have a look at WP:N. Addhoc 18:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is one of the bulldog articles on Wikipedia we should keep. At least that is what the editors at Dorling Kindersley publishing house decided. I will have questions about several of the other bulldog breeds mentioned and/or with an article on WP (peruse my talk page where I'm working to sort this out for myself), but, this one, per my research so far, IMO, is currently a keep. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 12:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI, a search inside using Amazon.com's feature may help some reviewers of this AfD. For example, see this search I just performed. Keesiewonder 12:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Keesiewonder. The link demonstrates multiple published sources, the excerpts would appear that at least in some cases the mention isn't trivial. Addhoc 14:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Per Keesiewonder, there appears to be some outside references, but more references from above should be included in the article, and the article needs a serious hacking at - much too much trivia. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep. I'm sorry that a few of the people here are not familiar with this breed, but I must state that they have no idea what they are talking about SIMPLY because they know nothing about the topic, the "Olde English Bulldogge". Refer to Wikipedia's definition of a breed then refer to the American Rare Breed Associations website www.arba.org . Then refer to the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club www.oldeenglishbulldoggekennelclub.com . Also, two books written by Carl Semencic, "World of fighting dogs" and "Gladiator Dogs" not only describe this dogs origin back in 1984, but quotes the breeds creator. Unfortunately the breed was abandoned by it's creator back in 1994 and as aresult many unethical Bulldog breeders took the opportunity to capitalize on his departure from the dog world by creating Hybrid Bulldogs and attaching the name Olde English Bulldogge to them. As the President of the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club, I can attest to, in a court of Law, the bloodlines of this breed which are now being preserved by the O.E.B.K.C. Only Olde English Bulldogges that can be traced back to the original foundatoin can be registered with the OEBKC. The registry contains over 550 Bulldogges, past and present. There is much to this story, but the story is long and I don't believe that is what people are looking for here. However, I am disappointed that statements have been made here that CLEARLY have not been researched before they have been made and are TOTALLY INACCURATE. These are the type of people that have given the unethical breeders a market for their Bulldog Hybrids. People that are unwilling to do their homework before spewing their opinions. I could be wrong here, but I thought Wikipedia was opposed to that type of ignorance? User:donpelon
Where are your independent sources? A book which quotes the original breeder may not be terribly independent. Argyriou (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I need some help determining whether the following three users are distinct or the same.
Headphonos
User:donpelon
User:Don Pelon
As I've said before, this article deserves to be kept. I am not (yet) comfortable with the variety of bulldog articles (see list at my talk) present overall, and I am not feeling like all users participating in various places are distinct users. What is the WP term for this? sock puppetry? So, if someone can help me figure this out, I'd appreciate it. Keesiewonder 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not "Don Pelon"...bye! Headphonos 14:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. When I placed something on donpelon's page, you immediately moved it. Usually completely separate users don't maintain each other's pages so quickly, but fine. What about "donpelon" and "Don Pelon"? Keesiewonder 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be me, "Don Pelon" my real name is Leo Paulding. I'm new to this discussion system. "donpelon" was the result of my first post. I'm getting the hang of it. I will update my personal page soon.Don Pelon 21:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent; thanks for the clarification and for joining us. Keesiewonder 21:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there seems to be multiple mentions of the breed on a variety of different webpages. There are published standard [11], its recognised by some kennal clubs, many breaders use the term, theres many other local groups who have accepted it [12],[13]. So maybe the bigger national Kennal Clubs have not recognised it, but wikipedia is not the mouth peace of these groups. --Salix alba (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is my stance that a well-written, correctly formatted, and referenced article deserves to stay, or at least have its content remain. ~ Flameviper 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Weak Delete This article should either be deleted or completely redone. I agree that parts of it sound like advertising and there are serious POV issues as well. Some info is unverifiable as well. Whatever the case, serious edits are in order and I think this article can be greatly shortened by deleting irrelevant info.--RexRex84 21:29, 11 January 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.