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. - Mailer Diablo 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Bulldogge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not finding much in the way of evidence that this is a notable or recognized breed of dog. Indeed, the article seems to read like an advertisement or press release for a particular breeder, and evidence indicates that any use of the term "British bulldogge" is an alternative/antiquated and possibly typographically incorrect spelling (very few Google hits) in reference to the current standard accepted breed of bulldog (or other "bulldogges", such as the Olde English Bulldogge, which actually is CKC recognized).

• Delete due to lack of WP:RS; no redirect to the correct spelling. Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I found this article via recent changes patrol and was very suspicious of the article's tone, but I wasn't completely sure since I'm not too knowledgable about dogs. The author of the article has also created Bulldogge, Bulldogges, British Bulldogge Kennel Club (which was speedy deleted and then recreated) and Bull baiting (which I've turned into a redirect to the better-written bull-baiting). I don't know what the author it trying to achieve by creating all these redundant, unsourced articles, but it bothers me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this article goes, then Old English Bulldog needs to be cleaned up to remove the section that is essentially a duplicate of this article. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do that. The user also added the content of bull baiting (which was an unsourced POV bit) into bull-baiting. He's also created Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club, which screams "spam" to me. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page (and the one that was speedied) is more or less an ad for Tim Kelly and his breeding. There is no sourcing that this is some new recognized breed. Montco 07:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Borderline G11, entirely unsourced. Tevildo 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The breeder is one of the founders of this breed of dog... you are allowing Olde English Bulldogges which is the name invented by David Leavitt... and now the breeders have broken gain into Leavitt Bulldogs and British Bulldogges -- these are the inner working of the breeders at the center of this movement... the circle of breeders includes Tim Kelly who is the founder of the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club which you allow on wikipedia. He has indeed founded a new club the BBKC... I am not trying to spam about the club, while I am a member -- these are rare breed dogs that deserve a small corner of the universe to tell their story... and I simply want to put them on the pages where they belong... the breeding programme that started in the 70's has progressed and the different strains are now established and the circles are evolving and the story should be able to be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsoren (talk • contribs)
  • There are two issues here. The main one is the lack of reliable sources for the entry. We'll need some third-party sources to establish that this is a recognized breed. The second one is notability. I don't know enough about dog-breeding to offer a definite opinion on this issue, but (presumably) the CKC recognition that the rival breed has obtained is enough to establish Olde English Bulldogge as notable. (Is CKC, as opposed to AKC or UKC, recognition actually enough? If not, perhaps the other article should go, as well). This breed needs to establish that it's at least as notable as its rival. Tevildo 07:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete adding "ge" to the end does not make this an encyclopaedic topic, especially since there is apparently only one breeder. Is it just me, or does this look like a People's Front of Judea kind of thing? Also, it reads like an advert. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable breed of dog developed recently by one person. No indication of kennel club acceptance.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the Bulldog is the same as the British Bulldog, there is no such breed as the British Bulldogge. The Old English Bulldog is an extinct breed of dog and warrants and article. Headphonos 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the comments above. Jayden54 11:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparently an unrecognised breed available from only one breeder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comments; note that I've proposed deletion on Wilkinson Bulldog, which this article's author mentioned as an article similar to this with little outside sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - even less notable than Olde English Bluudogge. When someone outside the community of breeders writes an article about the attempt to revive the old English Bulldog, then we can bring some of these articles back. Argyriou (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-verifiable, as there seems to be little if any external corroboration of the existence of the breed. However, reserve the right to restore the article if such external verification should become available. Badbilltucker 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) changing opinion to[reply]

• Keep I have been informed by someone whom I believe is better informed about these issues than I am that this breed is known to her, and I have faith in the character of that editor. The lack of external evidence tht we now have can probably be corrected, and, if it is not with time, the page can always be nominated again. Badbilltucker 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep important reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricanAmericanHistorian (talk • contribs)

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.