Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Lacy


 * 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   speedy keep. New user does not understand use/role of AfD. Article needs clean-up, not deletion. StarM 15:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Lacy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

false information Bluelacy (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is much of the information on this Blue Lacy page that is false and misleading. This page was created to promote a group of individuals and not the breed or true facts. Here are two credible sources will reveal some of the misleading information. http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/dogs/tx_blue_lacy.htm http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/sessionlaws/79thsession/bills/hcr/HCR108.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelacy (talk • contribs) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)  — Bluelacy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. First of all, AfD is not for cleanup. If you want editors to realize which statements are misleading, you'll have to do more than say "Here are two sources what will reveal it." Reveal what? But even if you could point that out, this is the wrong forum. If the articles has mistakes, correct them and give proper references. What individual is being promoted? That cute dog, top right? (Nice dog, Warrington!) And that really is the end of it, since you don't say that the subject is not notable. But, for good measure, there is this Google search which indicates notability in a sufficient way, in my opinion. Maybe there is something that a passing admin can do here--speedy the AfD since no assertion of non-notability is made? Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussions with author have been non productive. I am new to this type of format. I just forgot to sign. Really very sorry. I do appreciate the feed back :) I read this was the next suitable step when this happens on wikipedia.  When you do use a speedy Afd code, where do you post it?  In this section or on the actual page?  The grips that are trying to be expressed are the false information regarding a dog breed that is very important to many, and an author popping up and putting false information and trying to bring credibility to other site and pages they created that are false as well.  Wikipedia isn't for this type of posting.  This is a battle many dog breeds are dealing with.  Individuals trying to bring credibility to themselves or their sites to fraud people and puppy buyers.  Editing will just cause an editing war with this author and that is also not profitable.  Where would these issues be addressed if this isn't the way?  Sincerely asking, --Bluelacy (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor of this page knows what is stated false. The editor of this page will then just change it back and it would be a back and forth editing job.  Look at the "References" section.  You will be able to see what group the editor is with.  You will also not see this group included on HCR 108.  You can also open theses references links.  All but http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/dogs/tx_blue_lacy.htm  are the same group. Notice how long their pages have been up.  Not very long.  This was a way to get more links to their site and pages with false information.  Checking out how to speedy the Afd next.  —Preceding --[[User:Bluelacy|Bluelacy (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) comment added by Bluelacy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you have a discussion with the author then? Why take up time at AfD? (And why not sign your messages?) And I fail to understand what you are trying to establish. Group? What group? But it doesn't matter--none of your gripes (even if they are justified) should be addressed here. I don't think you will be able to speedy this: please check WP:CSD and you'll see that there's nothing there that you can use. Admin, can we please close this? Drmies (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion with the article author is not non-productive, it is non-existant.  Your edit history shows your nominated the article for deletion before making any other edits to it or any edits to the talk page, you have made no edits to the article creator's talk page, and the article creator has not engaged in an editing war with you.  Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The sources are certainly not independent third-party sources, but they are out there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SOFIXIT Nancy  talk  07:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Definitely encyclopaedical knowledge. Wrong reason given to delete an article. Warrington (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - no reason for deletion shown, AfD is not for content disputes, use WP:DR. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The author has been spoken to on other false information spread not just on wikipedia. This will keep turning into an edited and re-edit seesaw. After posting the true information links, tried to go in and make a strike through on all the false information. That has already been changed back with keeping the same false information. The author and main sources referenced are not independent third party sources! There are many third party sources that can be used without trying to bring credibility to a certain group. The State of Texas Blue Lacy Pages, Atlas of Dog Breeds of the World, Dog Breed Info. ect... These sites provide the accurate information and do not generate puppy sales for one group. --Bluelacy (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I will try and edit the false information again. This time I will try and make the changes in a different color if it will let me.--Bluelacy (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that you did. I have restored the original version. It does not do to put text that you like better in bold print, or to have contradictory information about the beast to just simply dump that in there. Also, the references became a complete mess, as anyone can see who looks at your final version--this after I spent hours making editorial corrections. I really suggest you try and practice in your sandbox first: I see that you have just deleted my entire talk page. A final note: "false information" seems to be a judgment call. Wikipedia works by way of verifiable sources. If those sources conflict, and if they are both of equal (or equally questionable) authority, then muscling out the other club is not the way to go. You claim there are so many third-party sources, books, etc.? Cite them. Properly, please. I'm going to do restore my talk page now, thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep – this is not what AFD is for. Bring this up by discussing with the user to inputted said "false information" or on the article's talk page. MuZemike 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.