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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I had considered relisting this but in the end concluded it would be pointless. The discussion has been open for two weeks and opinions are all over the place. It's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog breeds[edit]

Bulldog breeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly expand Bulldog_(disambiguation) a dab, create a list or category there already is a Category:Bulldog_breeds but needs to be renamed if it remains or make it so it lists various breeds with "Bulldog" in the name.^{18:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)} Does not to be a standalone article. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note to closer - there is only one Bulldog (also known as the British Bulldog, or English Bulldog that is considered a breed, and that is recognized as a purebred dog internationally by notable breed registries, including AKC, The Kennel Club, and Canadian Kennel Club to name a few. What this article is attempting to do involves WP:SYNTH and unreliable sources with anectdotal accounts of history. There are "bully types" but they are not "bulldog breeds" which is how some advocacies attempt to classify them in their quest to ban all bully types, while ignoring the fact that modern purebred dogs (with the exception of the Bulldog breed itself) no longer have any Old English Bulldog in their ancestry, if they had any to begin with at all. The dog breeds listed in the article are either unsourced or poorly sourced, as they are in the main articles. I just started trying to fix the mess that has been created because of misinformation. The dog breeds being referred to in this article as Bulldog breeds have been crossbred over centuries to other breeds and breed-types that have nothing to do with the Bulldog, which explains why the Old English Bulldog became extinct - it was bred out of those other breeds and the only thing that remains is the name because those breeds, such as the American Bulldog, were initially bred to drive and catch cattle and hogs, and don't look anything like a Bulldog. Another parallel to consider: The American Quarter Horse initially came to be by centuries old crossbreeding of the Arabian horse, Spanish Horse, and English-bred horses - we don't have Quarter Horses listed in an article titled Arabian breeds. It's nonsense. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The nominator deleted everything in the article and is now requesting an article deletion. I believe everything should be put back in the article and the article left alone. Aquatastetalk 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)ble Sockpuppet account. Cavalryman (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I only deleted unrecognized, non-notable "breeds", including one that is owned by a single person under the guise of "rare breed". 😳 I just hope editors who are knowledgeable about dog breeds, and what actually constitutes notability and categorization of purebred dogs will weigh-in here because there is quite a bit of article clean-up left to do in this t-area. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be parallel to other dog type articles likePinscher, Schnauzer, and Spaniel, which are names that encompass multiple breeds, just in this case bulldog is a specific breed by itself. Parallel overview sections like Genetics and Origins would be welcome. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: After doing a hatchet job on the article, nominator now wants the article deleted in favor of simply a 'category', however the article provides more information than a category can possibly offer. Nom offered the reason "unsourced SYNTH" to delete a section. SYNTH requires two or more sources in order to create WP:SYNTH; perhaps nom meant WP:OR instead. Nom removed several other sections while stating they aren't officially recognized breeds and fails GNG. However, WP:GNG is related to whether or not something gets its own article in Wikipedia, not whether it gets a mention within a related article (See WP:NOTEWORTHY). Nom removed the Alano Español section stating "unsourced and issues with verifiability", however some of the information was sourced in the Alano Español, whose link was provided. Nom has nominated two other articles for deletion today [1] [2] alleging they are not "real" dog breeds because they are not officially recognized as breeds. Nomopbs (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did extensive work on this article in the last four days. I reworked the lede (which was pretty skimpy) and added citations. I added a section "Names and variants" which helps explain why some of the breeds are included on the page whether or not they have 'bulldog' in their name. I standardized the type, size and placement of images. I went over each of the breeds and made sure each entry had just a summary, ensuring each has some sort of explanation or connection to "bulldog breeds". Though much of the page SEEMS citation-less, the Verifiability factor comes mostly from linking to the main article for each breed. Outside-from-Wikipedia citations are mostly in the original articles. All of the breeds have their own standalone articles except one, Bulldogge Brasiliero, which has its complete original text included in the Bulldog breeds article because of an Afd Merge decision about two weeks ago. In this article, I included breeds based on a more neutral point of view of "What is a bulldog breed?" and not the strict definition expressed by nom ("there is only one Bulldog") — and there are more breeds yet to add to the page.

I disagree with nom's explanations for her removing several breeds from this article just prior to nominating the entire article for deletion. The deletions were grounded in nom's arbitrary standard requiring that a breed be barred from any mention throughout Wikipedia unless (a) it is recognized by an official national kennel club, and (b) it is notable. Nom recently proposed this as an idea for a new official standard for all Wikipedia dog articles [3] and I posted my reasons for rejection of the idea here [4].

Vote no to merging with Molosser. Not all bulldog breeds are molosser types and the Bulldog breeds article has value that would be entirely lost if merged into that other article. — Nomopbs (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLN which tells us that we don't delete one form of structure to favour another. If category:bulldog breeds is acceptable, then an article about them is ok too. See also WP:BROAD. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Molosser. This appears to be a content fork and was full of OR, though there's been a bit of cleanup. I'm not seeing the need for something separate from Bulldog or the broader family of Molosser breeds. Category:Bulldog breeds is something else entirely, stating "An aggregate of dog breeds with the word "BULLDOG" in the their name. Dog breeds that originate from bulldogs, that do not have the word bulldog in their name should not be included in this category." Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Montanabw has got it right: this is a selection from the lists at Molosser, filled with material from the individual, well-developed articles and with no value added. We do not need individual articles at one end, a list of breeds on the other (and arguably the category even beyond that), AND a partial list of excerpts in the middle. - Random tossing-around of WP:BROAD above ignored as the usual empty one-size-fits-all verbiage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Molosser will not work because not all molossers are bulldogs, and not all bulldogs are molossers. The groups overlap, but neither group is a subgroup of the other. Therefore, merging with the Molosser page is not a viable solution. (Note: A large quantity of dogs listed on the Molosser page are not actually molossers.) Nomopbs (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm inclined to agree with Montanabw and Elmidae on the redirect to Molosser. However, I'm not convinced that an article of this kind couldn't have value with a major rewrite. On the one hand you have a large list of Molosser breeds, on the other you have detailed articles on individual breeds; the information on their relationships is either limited or fragmented. I think there is scope for an article focusing on a subset of bulldog-like Molossers and how different extinct and modern breeds developed from early bulldogs. You can see the basics for such an article reading the current article. A revised article should focus on the development rather than being another list.   Jts1882 | talk  16:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree something like that might work, but it would have to add substantially to what's already present at Bulldog#History - otherwise it's just another duplication. That section does feel rather condensed (but maybe appropriately so.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A brachycephalic history.   Jts1882 | talk  16:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 would be finding RS to cite. I have been removing poorly sourced material, some of which is cited to questionable "spring-up overnight" commercial breed registries that have a BOD (3 partners) that evaluate applications for registry. For all we know, the dogs may look like a particular purebred but all they have to go on is what the owner tells them - which could be that the puppy was sired by Hole In The Fence out of the bitch, Backyard. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote yet. I know quite a bit about dogs but much more about herding, sporting, and toy breeds than about bull-type dogs or molossers, and without reading a lot more, I'm hesitant to vote. However, the page as it currently stands lists dogs that are all included in Molosser, and I'm not sure that it makes sense to repeat info about the breeds that would already appear in each breed's page. Interestingly, neither page seems to include everything--for example, American Bully, which seems like it would fit in both places. I'm not sure what dogs don't belong in the Molosser page--quick check in other sources for some that seemed like maybes to me (e.g., French Bulldog, Pug...) do indeed seem to be counted as Molossers (e.g., http://www.bulldoginformation.com/small-dog-breeds-molossers.html)-- but the Molosser narrative fails to address small Molossers. I think that the suggestion that an article about the history of bulldog-type breeds could make sense, with a simple list of dogs in that category... but, as I said, not convinced that I know enough about that. Another possible solution could be to add subheads in the Molosser page for bulldog-type breeds and those that aren't, although not sure what the "aren't" ones would be grouped as. Mostly thinking out loud here. Elf | Talk 05:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to List of bulldog breeds. Ajf773 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...which would be a nice trifecta of factually wrong, a page misnomer, and pointless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is assuming the article is kept. Ajf773 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has many WP:RSs and the article passes our notability guide. The article can be renamed if there is consensus that "bully types" is a better title as the nominator suggests. Wm335td (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Editor has only 19 edits.^^^ ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psssst! Read WP:SENIORITY. — Nomopbs (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

READ WP:SPA ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Wikipedia:Single-purpose account? — Nomopbs (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to have a "list of" in front of the name. Reliable source call these breeds bulldogs then so be it. Enough valid referenced information in the article for it to exist. Dream Focus 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, the article lacks RS for all the names listed, and not all are legitimate breeds. Read the NOTE by the OP above, and what the redirects said. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: This whole conversation is happening because Atsme's deletion request is not going very well for him, so now he is trying to get Nomopbs account deleted. The person that is being aggressive and uncivil is Atsme, not Nomopbs. Atsme is a deletionist and Nomopbs is doing a good job editing and trying to save the article! Aquatastetalk 11:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet account. Cavalryman (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• WP:NUKEIT, horribly sourced. If someone comes up with some RS then they can recreate it. Cavalryman (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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.