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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 01:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull[edit]

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

I dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Wikipedia is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. john Evereadyo2 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - malicious nomination by vandalism-only account. Rcawsey (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per previous editor. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have blocked the creator of the AfD for 24 hours for disruptive editing-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: I do not see anyting malicious in this AFD, and I do not understand why the AfD notice was removed from the page[1]. Removal of AfD notices before the issue is formally settled is against the guidelines. Please explain. This said, the article is definitely at the wrong title because it is not about pit bulls, a term that is amply explained at the disambiguation page. It should be moved to agressiveness in dogs or something similar. Andreas ^(T) 14:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has now been formatted correctly, listed at WP:AFD, the AfD link has been reinserted into the article, and the originator of the AfD has been unblocked with an apology.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article should probably be called pit bull legislation and developed into a spinoff of the overgrown (106KB) article breed-specific legislation. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Pit Bull" is such a common term in the U.S. ASPCA uses the term as a catch all. The article does a good job of explaining the meaning and what the term entails.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There is no cogent reason for deletion. Joal Beal (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move - , sections and put them in with relevant articles. Because Pit Bull is a common term only used in the U.S. by the ASPCA ect, as a catch all. Is exactly why this article needs to be changed or renamed. It doesn't represent a world view. Evereadyo2 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -- 1) More than half of the nominator's edits concern this article. About a third of the nominator's edits appear to be canvassing. 2) Deletion or inclusion is based on notability, which is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, which this article appears to have. Maurreen (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2010 (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.