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. John254 23:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog fighting breeds[edit]

"This is a list of dog breeds originally developed for, or commonly used at some time in their history for dog fighting."

Nomination: This article name by itself is misleading and provocative by nature. It potencially allows to include about any given breed of dogs to the list and accordongly label it as "fighting breed". For example, Manchester Terrier and Bedlington Terrier are currently on the list. User:Afru

Keep - This article is a list, which is allowed at Wikipedia Category:Lists. Any breed on the list should have a citation for dog fighting in the breeds article. References in the list are not required as they are in the article. This list is relevant and adds context to Wikipedia and should stay. Chessy999 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep. Entries in the list are to be cited as having a history of dog fighting. It is not an indiscriminate list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a very useful list.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This meets WP:LIST just fine. It's not indiscriminate and does not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or any similar sub-guideline. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is by its definition a discriminate list. And useful, too. If there's any concern about specific entries, tag them as needing sourcing that the breed was indeed for fighting. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me, this can be a useful page.--RyRy5 talk 04:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meet WP:LIST. KTC (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I personally prefer categories. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it is, currently, an indiscriminate list, it's a valid topic with plenty of opportunities for improvement. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Quite discriminate actually. Chessy999 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if sourced The topic is worthy, but the article is very bad in its current shape. All unsourced entries should be deleted, which, at present, is the entire list. Any sourced entry should remain.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources are located in the articles, where they should be located, not the list. Chessy999 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (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.