Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilkinson Bulldog

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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wilkinson Bulldog

Wilkinson Bulldog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prod tag removed, so bringing for consideration here. Similar to the now-deleted Winston Olde English Bulldogge and the still under consideration Olde English Bulldogge and British Bulldogge, this is a rather obscure sub-breed of the bulldog that appears to be produced by a single breeder. I get about 560 Google hits for Wilkinson Bulldog, many of them similar to one another and likely submitted to various pages; the article itself states that the breed "appears to be gaining popularity," and is not recognized by a major kennel club. The editor who removed the PROD tag added a link to the Animal Research Foundation as an indication of notability. I frankly can't see this being a notable breed, and feel the article should be deleted (or possibly merged gently into the bulldog article) unless someone else comes up with some solid sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - The breed exists and is described in the "External Links" and referenced in the books of the "Further reading" section. The +tag the nominator should have placed on the article is {{{Keep}}} and {{{Expand}}} as the article has potential for expansion. Headphonos 03:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there a common breed standard? No. Is the breed recognized by any national groups? No. This isn't a breed; it's a line of dogs produced by one breeder. (Anyone interested in drafting Wikipedia:Notability (breeds)?) Zetawoof(ζ) 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Obviously you haven't read the article as it cites the breed is registered with Animal Research Foundation. There are many Category:Dog breeds that do not have standards, yet they are a dog breed.
Actually, I have read the article and checked references. The "Animal Research Foundation" does not appear to be a nationally recognized registry. As far as I can tell, they're the breed-registry equivalent of a diploma mill. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You have just qualified yourself as lacking knowledge about the ARF breed registry and dog breeds in general. Thank you for that. In addition, don't change my entries! Headphonos 20:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The ARF's policies and guide for new breed development make it clear that the primary requirement to register a breed with them is a series of payments. The article on breed registries notes:
There are also entities which refer to themselves as registries, but which are thinly-veiled marketing devices for vendors of puppies and adult dogs, as well as a means of collecting registration fees from novice dog owners unfamiliar with reputable registries and breed clubs. Though these entities generally focus on dogs, particularly in relationship to the puppy mill industry, some are marketed as cat registries. At least one group claims to register wild species (held by private individuals rather than by legitimate zoological parks, which use the AZA.
This appears to be more or less what's going on here. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless reliable secondary sources are added to make verifiable. CyberAnth 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - there are three "external links" including a well known dog registry and two reference books noted, which cite the breed, that is sufficient for an entry at wikipedia. Headphonos 12:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice of advertisement: User:Headphonos has advertised this discussion on the talk pages of the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. —Centrx→talk • 11:30, 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)
    • Em? Surely that's the right thing to do. If anyone can advise us on the legitimacy of an article, it is going to be those interested in the relevant Wikiproject. If the article is crap, those people will most likely know it.--Docg 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The purpose of the message was to summon users to come and vote a certain way, and it was perceived as such by the recipients, e.g. [1]. In general, this is usually the reason for this sort of mass-messaging, and if spamming were necessary for the deletion process to function properly then every WikiProject should be notified anytime an article within its scope is deleted. That is not feasible and would skew the discussion (and it would be done on the WikiProject talk page, not spam to every participant). Anyone who has the article on his watchlist is already notified of the discussion, and the way to clarify the status of an article is not to ask people to come stack a vote, but to request people at the WikiProject talk page to find reliable sources. Anyway, this comment here is notice to the closing admin to understand what happened when suddenly a dozen users show up and make empty votes, and the {{afdanons}} notice was added at the top to inform those users, if they came, what exactly this is—that it is not some ballot manipulable by a partisan bloc as the mass message would make it seem. —Centrx→talk • 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on, everyone. Please assume good faith. No personal attacks. Don't bite the newcomers. If Headphonos is an old user disguised as an old user, no one has pointed that out to me, even though I've said many times the logs show Headphonos has been a user since December 20, 2006. I can think for myself. I am not a puppet for Headphonos. In fact, if I had to say one way or another, putting words in his/her mouth, (which I should not do, and am not doing, but only providing an example,) I could even venture to say s/he may be sorry s/he contacted me about this topic in the first place. (i.e. I do not vote to keep all dog articles, only the ones that pass my research test.) From feedback I receive from people outside of bulldog debates, I gather that I am a relatively new yet fairly well respected editor. I do not own a bulldog, have never lived with a bulldog, do not like bulldogs, and never intend on having a bulldog. I am often quite good at conducting research. I feel this article should be deleted (maybe properly restored in the future, but currently deleted); I feel the one on Olde English Bulldogge should be kept. Keesiewonder 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I do not have the authority to tell them how to vote, I advised them of the process so they can participate. These people are the dog breed project participants and they are the best one's to consult. Surely you are not implying that they would vote to keep a dog breed that is not worthy of an article at Wikipedia. Take note that your template {{{afdanons}}} is referring to ANONymous canvassing, which I did not do. Headphonos 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am one of the editors who was informed of this discussion by the above editor and subsequently had that notice removed from my talk page, and I am thankful to him for informing me about this discussion. I regret to say that the sources indicated above do tend to be perhaps a bit less than we would like, as they do tend to uniformly seem to be basing their information on what they are supplied by the breeders themselves. However, verifiability can, and does, change over time, and so I would like to include the provision of reinstating the article if independent verification can be found. Also, I have notified another editor who seems to be better informed about rare breeds of this and the other discussions, and hope to hear from her soon. I reserve the right to change my opinion based on her input. Badbilltucker 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - to justify its own article there would have to be meaningful secondary references. Addhoc 12:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Strong Delete - Personally, I have not found anything that convinces me about this bulldog - at least not yet. And, I am not the other editor about whom Badbilltucker refers above. I will pass through the article now, inserting {{fact}} where I would like to see a specific citation inserted. What I see in the 'See Also' and 'Reference List' is not adequate for my current discernment of verifiability. I'm looking for page numbers from specific journals or books that are published by major publishers. As I'm sure proponents of the article can understand, I want to tie the resources to the facts in the article. If the article should be kept, this should be a relatively easy task. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 16:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One of the external links on the article's page says the following: "The Original English Bulldogge came to North America in 1946 from the island Inchtavannach in Loch Loman, Scotland, where it had been in the Wilkinson family for generations." Source: [2]. We already have an article on several other bulldogs that cover the original English Bulldogge. (Please see my talk page at [3] where I am trying to sort through all the bulldog lineages.) Anyway, the sentence I quoted does not mean that there is a specific line of bulldogs called the Wilkinson Bulldog. It means, to me, that the Wilkinson family worked with a breed of dog called the Original English Bulldogge. If this particular line of dogs became noteworthy for some reason, please provide a complete (page numbers and all) reference that I can check. If proponents of the Wilkinson Bulldog cannot produce this, remember that we cannot have articles on all the other families who may have had bulldogs in or after 1946, such as Scott Bulldog, Smith Bulldog, Walter Bulldog, Brown Bulldog, Henry Bulldog, Phillips Bulldog, Lord Bulldog, etc. If the Wilkinson Bulldog is indeed noteworthy, like the Olde English Bulldogge is, then some good resources and complete citations should be forthcoming. Right? For the record, the Wilkinson Bulldog is not mentioned once in this book. Not in a caption; not in an 'also known as.' Keesiewonder 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As webmaster for the Original English Bulldogge site I see no reason for this article to be kept. As with many other articles on Wikipedia there definitely is not enough reference material to justify it. As for A.R.F., this registry was not even created originally as a dog registry. I think while you are looking at this article you should definitely look at the Crofton, British Columbia article because, being the Archivist for the local museum, I know that most of this article came from one, small, minor publication and local knowledge. Cowbonsai 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - So you created a full website on the "Wilkinson Bulldog" and you are advising Wikipedia that the breed is not worthy of an article ?! Somehow I think this delete vote is tainted or even bogus ! Headphonos 12:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I read Cowbonsai's input to mean 's/he was the webmaster for content focused on the Original English Bulldogge site.' We don't know whether as webmaster s/he was owner of or had an opinion on the dogs featured on the web site. S/he could have been hired as a webmaster to create a site for someone else who was a proponent of the Original English Bulldogge. A dog breed that we are not discussing here. We are discussing the Wilkinson Bulldog. From the information provided, Cowbonsai has not had anything to do with a website on the Wilkinson Bulldog. I trust Cowbonsai will correct my interpretation if I'm wrong. Keesiewonder 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect Keesiewonder the Original English Bulldogge is the Wilkinson Bulldog this is simply another example of Ochlocracy and why Wikipedia is devolving into Wikiality, time for me to start an account at Wookiepedia -:) Headphonos 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, Wikipedia has higher standards of verifiability and notability than any random website. —Centrx→talk • 15:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Actually I didn't create a whole website about the Wilkinson Bulldog and that's the problem. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a Wilkinson Bulldog. Lolly Wilkinson's dogs was how the breed was referred to in "The Story Of the Real Bulldog" on page 81. The breed is registered as the Original English Bulldogge with A.R.F. and that is how Lolly Wilkinson refers to them. My site is the only website dedicated to the Original English Bulldogge and it is authorized by Lolly. There are two other authorized pages, one on Kaare Konradsen's MolosserWorld and the other on A.R.F.'s site. All other references to this breed have been ripped from my site or the other two pages. As to whether I'm me or not, I came to this thread because of an e-mail I got addressed to my contact address on the Original English Bulldogge site. The reason I don't care one way or the other about whether the Original English Bulldogge is on Wikipedia is because of what I can tell from this thread. It is very obvious that the intent is to turn the dog section into a mirror for the A.K.C.. That became very clear when they started talking about major or national registries. I really don't see why what registry a breed belongs to should be a deciding factor of whether a breed gets into Wikipedia or not. Cowbonsai 21:18, 8 January 2007
Exactly, it doesn't matter, but because of [Wikiality] everybody and his dog has an opinion, ie. if it doesn't belong to a major kennel or the FCI, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. That is what I call ochlocracy, the mob-rule ! Headphonos 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Read some guidelines, please, instead of referring to those of us who have a problem with the article as being mob rule or something. Notably, we need reliable sources that are verifiable indicating that this sub-breed of dog is notable. There is none of that at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a member of the dog projects on WP, but am not the originator of them. Headphonos (and Cowbonsai), I have not ever said anything anywhere resembling this: "if it doesn't belong to a major kennel or the FCI, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia." I did suggest that Headphonos, and now anyone who is reading this, that if you have concerns about the dog projects, you should contact the projects directly. The response I received from Headphonos on this was that s/he was not interested in all the dog breeds, just certain ones ... and, I guess, with that reasoning, has chosen to not contact the dog projects. If you need me to provide links to my dialogs with Headphonos, I will. I do not feel that the dog projects are being portrayed accurately in this AfD. And, if there are concerns, if you do not raise them with the users who may be able to help, they cannot be addressed. Keesiewonder 23:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we get on with Deleting Wilkinson Bulldog instead of discussing WP's censorship policies? Cowbonsai 00:42, 9 January 2007

I think we're done; where's the deciding admin? Keesiewonder 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - as per a comment earlier, I have contacted the cat, dog, and horse breeds WikiProjects and asked them if they would be willing to assist in drafting guidelines for breed notability. Badbilltucker 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm interested to hear how this goes. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
So am I! I've followed up in the dog arena. Keesiewonder 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Is this continuing? If the variation has merit, you may consider merging with another article, but I have to admit that I see little support or evidence for a separate breed, or even a distinct variant. I would also caution that Animal Research Foundation, or ARF, is not a viable source on breeds or even those entries it has registered. Their entry lists traits such as speech (the dogs say "Mumma"?), and eating from a spoon? A personality trait is not "sleeping on a bed". CMacMillan 19:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This usually lasts 5 days. —Centrx→talk • 20:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

so any time now ... Keesiewonder 10:58, 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.