Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog (2nd nomination)

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG, modern crossbreed type dog being represented as a breed, but unrecognised by any notable breed organisation or kennel club. No RS included in article, the only secondary sources on google are two self published works on bulldogs. Cavalryman (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. See following sources: 1 2 3. Dorling Kindersley (publisher of the first two) is a reputable publisher, the third is harder to identify but at least has an ISBN. FOARP (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, please confirm what the first two books you have linked above say about the Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, my google searches does not show either book on any of the first five pages for these dogs. The third book you cite is one of the two self published works mentioned above.

These dogs are not recognised by any breed association and not covered in any works I have access to. Whilst they are good looking animals and likely a healthy robust line, I see no evidence of their notability Cavalryman (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please click on the links to see what the two sources, both of them Dorling Kindersley reference books, say. You need to search Google Books to see what book-sources are available. That a reference is not visible in the first five pages of Google results is neither here nor there. A breed not being recognised is also neither here nor there. Edit: additionally, there are two articles available in French from what appear to be reliable sources (including a veterinary journal) regarding this type of dog: 1 2. I saw a lot of news articles about attacks by this type of dog but I'm not sure that counts as significant coverage of the subject of the article or not. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, thank you for the advice. I am unsure if it is a regional difference, but the links you have provided only take me to a picture of the books with a publication summary, neither a preview nor a snippet view are available. So again I ask, please confirm exactly what they say about these dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Full-page articles about the subject of the article. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete - shady practices but with a nice store front. Fails GNG. ^{Per the RS provided by JLAN. Good job! 19:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)} What I've seen are articles like this one, which is a major red flag for me, especially considering none of the long established registries recognize this breed. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the present state of the article is bad, but I don't think this is WP:TNT territory. The DK references appear to indicate that this is a notable subject. I think something could also be added about the attacks involving this type of dog. EDIT: I've made my attempt at a WP:HEYMAN edit of the article - have a look. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, I have reviewed what you have done with the article but still believe it fails GNG. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

There's two full-page book references in there, from a reputable publisher. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, “These dogs typically have a predominantly white coat with blue merle markings, and with patches of any colour, triangular ears, a broad head and a short muzzle” and “This dog requires careful training and regular exercise” hardly establishes notability. Cavalryman (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It's not the parts included in the article that determine how notable the subject is, it's whether or not they have received significant coverage from reliable sources. DK is a reliable source. Two page-long articles is significant coverage. This is without being able to consult the vetinary journal article referenced above. FOARP (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think something could also be added about the attacks involving this type of dog. FOARP, the cited sources are problematic per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, particularly your mention of "the attacks involving this type of dog", regarding the 2012 incident. Dog type vs dog breed are not the same. Dog types are crossbreeds, mixed breeds, mongrels or mutts. ~~We have far more traffic fatalities and don't list all the deaths in the articles of the vehicle manufacturer.~~ I will add that other applicable WP:PAGs support deletion, including WP:GNG which states in part: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. This article fails GNG, and WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:NOTADVOCACY - I mention the latter because of the one or two dog attacks by an unrecognized breed cited to questionable sources. It is important that, as editors, we provide accurate information and not conflate dog breed with dog type or worse, stereo-type a dog based on appearances. Misidentifying dogs creates multiple issues as per the following: USC's report, PLOS ONE, Smithsonian and Winograd here. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Dorling Kindersley is indeed a reputable publisher, though not an academic one; the books do support the content in the page (and also give height, weight, and a scrap of history). There's other coverage in Springer Nature, in the American Journal of Veterinary Research, in the proceedings of the Conférence nationale des vétérinaires spécialistes de petits animaux, 1999 and in "alapaha+blue+blood"&hl=en Country Life, 1995. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it appears RS has been found and that is a good thing. I cannot view any of the google books links (perhaps it is a regional thing) and so cannot comment on their value. I ask that one of the contributors who introduced them incorporate some of that information into the article as currently it is abysmal. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:14, 21 September 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.