Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Paul Terrier


 * 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 redirect to Bull and terrier. Based on the comments in the discussion, this seems like the most suitable compromise that reflects the majority of viewpoints. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Blue Paul Terrier

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It's a bogus breed, (created by a notorious sock puppeteer), fails WP:V and WP:GNG. This dog was never a bona fide breed (purportedly existed in the 1800s), its origins are unknown according to the small amount of information available in the 2 cited doggy books, and as a dog-type the 2 sources claim that it is probably the result of a bull and terrier cross. This WP article has given this fictitious dog life, and that is embarrassing.  Atsme 💬 📧 10:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for the claim that the breed is bogus? Are you claiming that the two sources for the article are bogus or that they state that the breed is? I don't have access to the text of Harris but Meyrick certainly refers to it as a genuine breed. If reliable sources are mistaken, that they are noting as genuine a fictitious breed, seems of note in itself. All dog breeds are the result of... breeding. Anything not supported by the sources, whether added by the sock or not, can and should be removed but, if the sources were added by the sock, they still stand on their own merits, not those of the editor who added them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP is an encyclopedia, not a doggy book or internet site that perpetuates myths about non-existent "breeds" based only on anecdotal evidence, rumor, and misunderstandings of how purebred dog breeds are developed, or what constitutes a "breed". What we do know for certain prior to the formation of reputable breed registries is that all dogs descended from wolves Canus lupus. What we have in this case is a mouse-gray colored dog with "mysterious origins" that in all likelihood is just another pit bull-type or bull and terrier hybrid cross with no established breed standard, no foundation pedigree, no official recognition as a breed, and probably a descendant of the bull and terrier crosses of the mid-1800s; aka the progeny of a heterogeneous group of dogs - (common sense required here).  Please read Bull and terrier for more information about how those crosses were developed, all of which is cited to multiple RS, and leading experts of dog breeds. The photograph used in this article comes from this unreliable source. WP requires multiple secondary RS to satisfy WP:N, and even then there is no guarantee of inclusion. The information must also pass WP:V, especially for fringe claims born of anecdotes such as is this one. Even David Harris on pg 30 of The Bully Breeds stated..."The origins of these blue dogs are shrouded in uncertainty"; on page 31 he stated: "But the fable continued with periodic reports of Blue Pauls in both Scotland and Ireland."  It's as much a fable as are leprechauns.  Atsme  💬 📧 16:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're forthcoming PROD of leprechaun will similarly be a challenge then.
 * Do you see the point? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the recent sources added to the article, it appears you may have misunderstood the context of those sources, incorrectly believing they support your position when in fact they support what I've been saying; i.e., the dog is not a breed. Those sources describe a bull and terrier mixed breed of dog that is mouse grey in color, not a purebred dog that breeds true. They also state that it's origins are unknown and were not notable.
 * A History and Description of the Modern Dogs of Great Britain and Ireland–The Terriers (pg 89–90) Chapter: The Black and Tan Terrier – the author clearly states Mr. Thomson Gray, in his " Dogs of Scotland," mentions a dog called the Blue Paul, and earlier writers had also drawn attention to the same animal. I certainly refuse to acknowledge him as a variety, and consider him identical with the " blue terrier bred from " black and tans." moved underlined text to Bull Terrier below – apologies for transposing quotes 21:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bull Terrier (pg 63–66) The Blue Paul – the author clearly states ...and that practically no one of our present fancy had either heard of him or cared to hear about him. For the past few years in research on the breed, I have discovered  only a few breeders who had even heard of this curious branch of the tree,  and especially in view of the  new interest in colored Bull Terriers and in color-bred whites,  this Blue Paul must have meant a good deal,  although all indications are that his pedigrees were not carefully kept and are almost–or at least I have found it so–impossible either to trace or verify.  The dog was not even notable during the time it supposedly existed, and it is certainly not notable now that it is purportedly extinct.  The article also states: The Blue Paul was described by various authors such as Cameron, Garrew, Gray and others as a bulldog-like terrier, .... which is why I redirected it to Bull and terrier. It was never a bona fide breed.
 * Adding: 01:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)House Dogs and Sporting Dogs (1861...Mpg 31-32...John Meyrick) – Is a dog known only among the dog-fanciers of London, and I believe that the original breed is now either extinct or extremely rare; but the strain is still highly valued. The 3rd paragraph of 3 total short paragraphs in the entire book go on to say...There is an odd story very general among the fancy, that the original breed was brought to this country by Paul Jones, the pirate. The breed was formerly to be met with in Scotland. Excuse me, but with all due respect, if this and the other examples above are what WP is using to include stand-alone articles as passing GNG and V, I'll just stick to my day job; i.e., retirement.  Atsme 💬 📧 01:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned that OR and SYNTH is being used, inadvertently or otherwise, to make it appear this dog is/was a bona fide breed, when it clearly was not. At most, it may have been another bull and terrier hybrid of unknown pedigree that may or may not be mouse grey in color, and was used to fight in the pits. As I pointed out above, the authors of the cited books clearly confirm that it is a type of dog, not a verifiable breed.  Atsme  💬 📧 02:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have good citations for the dog not being a true breed, perhaps you could add that info in another section on the page. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite.
 * If, as you say, "the authors of the cited books clearly confirm that it is a type of dog", you have no issue with the existence of the article. Whether that type of dog is classed a “verifiable breed” is immaterial. We only require that the topic is verifiable as a topic.
 * I added sources because they discuss the topic, verifying the existence of that topic and indicate that, by its discussion, it is notable as a topic. That you believe an editor should add sources to support a prior “position” is telling. (That you believe an editor should add text to an article to state that the subject’s “nature as a distinct variety (is) disputed”, supported by a source which states “I certainly refuse to acknowledge him (the Blue Paul) as a variety” to advance the contrary position that it is a distinct variety is bizarre. What is notable is the discussion of the matter and that there is a difference of opinion about it.)
 * If a thing is a thing and has coverage, particularly in multiple reliable sources, that supports its notability, be that, in this example, according to the construct of what constitutes a bona fide "pedigree" "breed" as stipulated by a 21st century American dog organisation, a no-doubt less formal coining in Scotland and the wider UK of the 19th century, a thing that is noted historically but nobody is really sure about any more, a mythical creature or is an outright fabrication and fraud. Whichever it is, according to the evident sources, reflect that in the article. Much of the coverage of Blue Pauls seems to be about their disputed nature, so let's cover that. Leprechauns are not a "bona fide breed" but it is appropriate they have an article because they are verifiably a notable folkloric phenomenon. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Feels very Quazer Beast-like in its current version. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D9D6:5287:205F:CEBC (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect to Bull and terrier rather than delete. After nearly a week of intense research, I have come to the conclusion that either would be an ok option. Based on the few cited sources, it appears the dog's color is why it was considered unique during its time in the pits, but color is not a "breed". The sources conflict with each other in that one author believes it is a full-blooded terrier derived from the Black and Tan Terrier, whereas other authors believe it is a mixed breed resulting from a cross between bulldogs and terriers. The fact that the dog doesn't exist (claimed to be extinct) and the pedigree is unknown, undocumented, and based entirely on anecdotal information, referring to it as a "breed", which is actually a myth, would be an embarrassment for any encyclopedic project.  I don't mind either way what consensus decides as long as it is something other than leaving it as a standalone article that doesn't meet the requirements for GNG or V.  Atsme  💬 📧 20:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect I also choose merge or redirect. I also reiterate that four sources (2 links, 2 hardcopy) is not enough for an article. I did a search looking for articles; they all say the same thing: the dog was not a breed, was vague in mention, or was an extinct breed. This is an issue for GNG and V. Also to think of Due Weight, the current sources are not enough to prop up an article; they are more suited to mentions used for small weight. Additionally, the issue of the Leprauchan is not a valid analogy as to there is no article without the supposed breed. No sources and no name. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you are saying about the leprechaun analogy, despite having read the sentence several times. There definitely (and appropriately) is a leprechaun article and they definitely do not exist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The comment was about the leprechaun analogy, not about the lepracaun article. Without the Blue Paul breed and the few sources that exist, there is no dog for there to be a dog article or topic as you described it. (No lepracaun - no dog via the analogy). What article or topic can someone write about the Blue Paul as a topic saying you can include it without the breed, no you can't do it. The name is the so called breed name. All the sources refer to the Blue Paul and Blue Poll. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No the analogy is, as you seek to characterise it, "no leprechaun - no article", which we, quite rightly, do not apply. Sources cover the subject, then so do we. That sources deny the existence of the leprechaun or cast doubt on the existence of some dog, as existent sources discussing the topic, they support the notability of the subject as much as if they were supporting its tangible existence. Its tangible existence is no requirement - we just follow the source to state it doesn't tangibly exist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The refactoring of talk page posts, particularly after they have been responded to by other users is regarded as poor practice and to be avoided. The extent of these changes is so significant that I frankly can not follow how they might "differently represent" the user's points and the responses to them. This is regrettable and an experienced editor really should know better. Anyone reading this thread should bear in mind that it has been altered in a problematic fashion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to read refactoring "how to", which is actually a recommended process. Also, read the edit summaries in sequence and you will see that I simply corrected an inadvertent transposition of 2 sources & quotes. And then I simply organized my list of sources with respective quotes from each...in context. I did not remove anything beyond simple copy editing type errors on my part. That's why it's called "editing". My actions did not change the meaning of anything, rather it corrected the citations and organized things for easy reading. All of my edits are dated and explained in the edit summaries and on the TP, which requires a few seconds of reading.  Atsme 💬 📧 23:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I find that "Refactoring" in this case did not cause an issue for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by dawnleelynn (talk • contribs)
 *  Keep  Keep or Merge The reasons being given for the nomination are fundamentally misconceived. The implication that 19th century sources are invalid is unsound. The validity of a topic to be the subject of an article relies on its being covered in reliable sources, not on how those sources classify it. That the sources discuss the subject is the marker for inclusion, whether, in this example, they discuss it to classify it as a breed (as at least one does) or they discuss it to deny that it is. Indeed, the nebulous and disputed nature of the subject is arguably the most significant reason for its coverage in the various sources. Sources cover this topic, so we report that and we say what they say. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of my reticence about a merge is, due to the variety of possible origins and classifications given in the various sources, there are several potential contradictory choices for any merge, i.e, bull and terrier, bull terrier, black and tan terrier. I'm unsure if it is correct or quite this simple but if bull and terrier is demonstrably generic,* a merge there may be an acceptable alternative to keeping the article as a standalone. And this if the cited material in this standalone article is merged in full. Hence I've amended my recommendation from keep to keep or merge.
 * (*not using the term biologically here of course as these are breeds and other sub-classifications of a species) Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect per above, it hardly beats SIGCOV on its own. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, let's talk notability. In WP, we do not cover a thing because it's a thing. Let's get that straight first. I think everyone actually agrees with that in their core beliefs. So we ask, does this article pass WP:GNG or WP:SNG? And let's not forget WP:V. Do we have enough significant, reliable secondary sources? Because that's where I believe this article fails. See WP:NRV. There is not a set number of sources that say yes or no. It varies with the sources themselves. I once wrote a short article with only 5 sources. But those were 5 halls of fame sources. In another article, 5 might be far from enough sources. I have worked on an AfD that was deleted even though the film had about 20 sources. Many of the sources were just similar advertising. The sources in this AfD are few and short on content. Definitely not enough to prop up this article. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to get straight something that nobody is advocating? If I've missed it, could you point it out to me please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. All what these sources have in common is that they are doing speculation. A source that speculates about something without being able to or willing to substantiate it is not reliable in that context.Lurking shadow (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The basis in policy for this declaration being? The reporting in a reliable source of the dubious or speculative nature of something is no different to reliably sourced reporting in general. See leprechauns, above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.