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. Arguments are all over the map, with substantial sentiment behind any of keep, redirect, merge, or delete. The main item of disagreement here is whether being a "recognized" breed is a requirement for having an article. I don't see any killer arguments either way, nor am I aware of any WP:NDOGBREEDS that might give me guidance on that.

The article as it currently stands is woefully lacking in WP:RS, and has been tagged as such for three years. Normally, a lack of sources would mean an automatic deletion for failing WP:V, but there are enough sources presented here in the AfD text, that WP:V is clearly satisfied. So, we're back to there being no consensus about meeting WP:N.

Given the volume of discussion here, and the amount of time this has been going on (I came here from WP:AN/RFC), I don't see how further discussion is going to lead to a consensus. Apologies to Randykitty for stepping on their recent relist. Likewise, I'd encourage people thinking of re-nominating this per WP:RENOM, to instead work with your fellow editors on the talk pages to either find better sourcing or work towards a consensus for one of the possible merges mentioned in the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catahoula bulldog[edit]

Catahoula bulldog (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)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:OR - not a recognized breed, no breed standards, cited sources are neither reliable nor do they establish notability ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE TO CLOSER - the opening few sentences in the lead state:
  :::The Catahoula bulldog is a crossbreed dog created by crossing the Louisiana Catahoula Leopard Dog and the American Bulldog. Currently, they are not considered a breed by any major fancier and breeder organization. WP:NOT applies here - there are millions of Heinz 57 bred dogs, crossbreeds and individual crosses assumed to be a breed when they are not even a consistent type of dog because the information is anecdotally based and is unverifiable. If anything REDIRECT or MERGE to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Common enough crossbreed dog over a very long time. Not owned by people interested in 'show dogs'.
  • A google search for "Catahoula Bulldog" brings up 1.3 million hits, and over 200,000 if you include the quotation marks for the search.
  • This source [1] (as do many others) says the breed has been around for over 100 years, are well known among hunters and farmers, and though they're not recognized by the AKC there's enough specimens and demand for the breed that they are usually bred to each other (not first generation crossbreeds). Also this website [2]. Here is a new article about the breed [3] two months ago.
  • The Wayback Machine archived a webpage [4] mentioning the first certified breeder of Catahoula Bulldogs in 1968. This webpage was by Animal Research Foundation, a registry of dogs dedicated to recording pedigrees prior to a breed's acceptance into official kennel clubs such as the AKC. A similar rendition of that webpage was archived from 2001-2010.
  • The American Canine Assoc (Vet health tracking canine registry) has a page for the breed [5].
  • The National Kennel Club has a breed standard for a Catahoula Cur, [6] reputed to be the same breed of "pig catch dog".
  • The C.B. is mentioned in these Wikipedia articles: Dog crossbreed, List of dog breeds, Catch dog, Natural bobtail, Dogs in the United States, and List of fatal dog attacks in the United States (2000s) (a 2007 death involving a Catahoula Bulldog).
  • This 2002-archived webpage states the breed origin was "late 1800's". [7]
  • This page [8] mentions more of who and when the dog breed was developed further in the 1950's & 1960's.
  • Here is a 2010 message board thread [9] discussing Catahoula Bulldogs, including several people who mention having them or knowing someone who has one, and pretty much describing them as working dogs for hog catching.
  • Craigslist has several mentioned for sale or rehoming.
  • C.B. is noted as one of the top 25 "Most popular mixed-breed dogs" (2016) [10]
  • This article shows that C.B. is one of the top googled dog breeds in Louisiana, USA. [11]
  • This article mentions a family that lost their C.B. in a kennel incident in Canada [12], and this German-language article [13] translated to English [14] states "In the USA, the country of origin, the Catahoula Bulldog is quite common; in Europe he is almost unknown."

Over all, this breed seems notable enough for a standalone article in Wikipedia. Recognition by a kennel club or having no show dog status and no breed 'standard' (which is a feature of show dogs), does not disqualify this breed from having its own article in Wikipedia. Nomopbs (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge Seems to be a common cross and so there are alternatives to deletion such as merger with a parent or into a list such as list of crossbred dogs, which we prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This dog breed is notable and should have it's own article. Aquatastetalk 11:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet account. Cavalryman (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is definitely notable enough to remain. HAL333 02:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definitely notable, requires citations added to the article. AvalerionV 20:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AvalerionV, what part of WP:GNG did you read that convinced you an article with no citations is "definitely notable"? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Articles aren't notable or not notable, topics are. See WP:N. It is unacceptable for you to make snide remarks towards ANY editor. See WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS. For the record, you were the one to delete all but one remaining citation today after discovering your AfD attempt had failed. [15] (Decision was 'Keep'.) Reducing or eliminating all citations doesn't change the notability of the topic. See WP:CONTN. — Nomopbs (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on content and stop the aspersions and hounding. 2nd warning. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Misidentified dogs are being euthanized. Winograd stated:

"Not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “Pit Bulls,” PETA is not only killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are asking shelters to kill dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look."

Other articles of note: USC.edu, Plos, Smithsonian, and on and on. It is of the utmost importance that we get these dog articles right, and that our core content policies are strictly followed with regards to dog breeds, breed types and types of dogs. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, probably into Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog, with sources. Relevant material may also work in the list of crossbreeds. An article with zero sources clearly fails notability and WP:ILIKEIT is not a rationale for keeping. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mongrel. I can appreciate the work that's gone into this article, and I applaud collaborative work that's built the article to its current state. Still, I don't see where it has made any claim to have established notability, and as it is I feel it comes up short of our WP:GNG section of that policy. I suppose merging with the list of cross breed dogs or even with Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog is an option - but I think the most logical choice is to save what we can to the mongrel article. — Ched :  ?  — 23:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious merge and redirect to what is presently Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog; they're just multiple names for the same breed (or cross-breeds involving it). Move the merged result to Catahoula Cur, the name used by the registry (a reliable source), and also per WP:CONCISE. While there's lots of Internet chatter about "Catahoula bulldog", e-commentary in forums and blog posts by nobodies are not reliable sources; nor are websites of dog breeders and breed/cross-breed promotion groups (they have a monetary interest, ergo they fail WP:INDY.) There's nothing reliable here that establishes that a "Catahoula Bulldog" has somehow breed-forked from the rest of the Catahoula dogs and is accepted by the public as a breed in its own right; that's just WP:POV and WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. WikiProject Dogs, after its re-start a while back, has been successfully merging various WP:CONTENTFORK articles, and this should continue. If two organizations (kennel clubs, breeder groups, etc.) have two different names for essentially the same dogs, that's a single breed, covered by a single article, with its multiple names listed. Crosses get mentioned in summary form at the articles on the parent breeds. Sub-breeds are covered at the main breed article. Same goes for cat breeds, horse breeds, etc. 00:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AReaderOutThataway (talk • contribs)
• Delete or merge to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog. Fails GNG and has done since it was created 2008. Cavalryman (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Further, if consensus is merge, only reliability sourced content should be included in destination page. Cavalryman (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Redirect to Louisiana Catahoula Leopard dog, since the subject of the contested article clearly lacks independent notability, which is why the text is free of the necessary & appropriate outside references. There is nothing to use as a Merge: Unsourced text is not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia but deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not being a proper breed is not in any way a valid reason for deletion, and I see no benefit in merging. There are multiple books about this dog. Many of them are self-published, (some of the authors may meet WP:SPS, I haven't investigated) but this book has substantial coverage from a RS publisher. SpinningSpark 19:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m not aware of multiple books about the Catahoula bulldog. The book to which you linked includes a long paragraph that mentions crossing a Catahoula Leopard dog with Bulldogs - that alone does not make the cross verifiable or particularly notable for a standalone article, especially since it is based entirely on anecdotal information. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:57, 22 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.