Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge


 * 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   merge to Olde English Bulldogge. Without prejudice to merger to a more general article.  MBisanz  talk 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorset Olde Tyme Bulldogge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not mentioned anywhere in google books or google scholar. Other results are for breeders or user-contributed sites  T K K  bark !  03:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep from author: The article is about a notable breed, as sourced in the footnotes, but the unusual spelling with "Olde Tyme" limits searches about the Dorset bulldogs. I have added a source, today, from Google Books to the article, but found spelled as "Dorset Old Thyme..." not quite matching the archaic spelling. The subject of niche breeds of bulldogs is limited, although there are hundreds of dog-breed webpages which do mention the Dorsets. Hence, I advise to keep. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Google Books isn't the sole arbiter of knowledge, but nor is one website reprinting the breeder's own photos adequate sourcing.  A breed developed "in the late 1980s", yet one of the two books cited as refs was published before this, in 1985? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bulldog. If I remember correctly, this breed was criticised for over-inbreeding, producing some highly undesirable characteristics.  The stated intention (as I understand it) is to change the breed characteristics gradually so that breeders will get rid of the unhealthy ones.  The name is ludicrous since it is reverting to pre-Johnson spelling.  Victorian and modern spelling are similar.  Has this breed been recognised by the Kennel Club?  I presume not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:N, I don't think any of these points can have any relevance to this issue. A ludicrous ye olde worlde spelling for an inbred freak is no bar, per WP:ENGVAR, and I doubt if the Kennel Club carries much weight either. However is any adequate attention being paid by any RS bodies? That's all we need, but I'm not even finding that much. There's the breeder's own coverage and blog/forum discussion of it, but nothing RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk  )  14:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Either merge to bulldog or delete -- certainly do not keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge to a suitable "Restored bulldog" article, as distinct from Bulldog in general. I'm convinced that the efforts to recreate an "original" bulldog are notable, and sufficiently distinct from Bulldog, just not that every single breeder's own efforts in this direction are adequately distinct. A possible target might be Olde English Bulldogge, although I'm not knowledgeable enough to say if this one is itself the most substantial. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also support a merge to a "Restored bulldog" (or similarly-titled) article. There are numerous projects similar to this which, if they aren't notable enough to have their own article like the Olde English Bulldogge, are certainly notable enough to have a section in a larger work. -- T K K  bark !  02:24, 12 February 2013 (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.