Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable fighting dogs


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

List of notable fighting dogs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely unsourced; the "Sporting Dog Journal" linked doesn't appear to be the illicit one used by dog-fighters. A ridiculous list; none of the dogs have Wikipedia entries (nor should they). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Sporting Dog Journal is well known and has been around for a long time. A description of the point system is at the top of the article.  Articles for some of the fighting dogs will follow shortly.  Why do you feel notable and famous dogs should not be included in Wikipedia.  As you see many are already in Wikipedia: Category:Dog monuments, Lists of dogs, etc. IQ125 (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourced, meaningless except to those who already know what it means, an "in-universe" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 04:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --  Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: None of us like dog fighting, but we have to accept that it did happen in the past and continues to happen now. These fighting dogs were all recognized by the Sporting Dog Journal and graded on a merit system.  Many of these dogs are quite notable as they are the progenitor bloodlines for dogs that are being bred today as peoples pets and some unfortunately for dog fighting.  Wikipedia should not delete a list or article because the topic is not pleasant.  I believe the list will expand and some of the dogs will have articles written about them as there is a significant amount of information to support an article.  IQ125 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Is The Sporting Dog Journal a reliable source? No. Is this point system used by anybody other than the journal? Who knows. There's so little context I can't even tell if these are modern dogs or from when this was tolerated. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. One of the dumbest articles I've ever read. Absolutely no evidence of notability. A list of meaningless stats and fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The SDJ is clearly not an RS. (Tangentially, get a load of their disclaimer. Note the invocation of their "Fifth Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression"—the right to incriminate themselves, evidently.)
 * Looking for other sources to satisfy WP:LISTN, I can only find a few highly unreliable ones: game-bred.com, gamedogshistory.com, some blog although there are a decent number of sources for List of dog fighting breeds. A book-length RS treatment of status and fighting dogs does not include names, let alone lists, of famous or (grand) champion individuals . The British Parliament in the 18th century seems to have produced a report briefly discussing "famous fighting dogs, and their value," but I can't find it and it wouldn't be sufficiently general or up-to-date. Overall, the topic of famous individual fighting dogs fails LISTN and GNG, regardless of dogfighting's legality or WP editors' opinions about it. FourViolas (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- uh, this is like having a list of the most prolific drug dealers. It's an illegal activitiy, and any records can't actually be verified by any reliable source. Nothing indicates these are 'historic' stats. Also, linking to the main page of the magazine's website is not proper sourcing. Also, as discussed above the magazine seems like a pulp magazine without any indica of traditional reliability. Plus, none of the dogs have their own articles, and having a standalone list without -any- blue links is not good policy. Anyway, no. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, the single cited source appears to fail RS and most likely V, the list is appallingly drafted, fails GNG and worst provides absolutely no context at all for the subject matter (ie. when and where these illegal fights apparently occurred, not even a century and/or continent). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, none of the dogs listed appear to be notable (wikiarticles?), where are the books that discuss them?, a search on WorldCat does show that there are books on dog fighting, these might include famous dogs but without info on any this is a delete from me. ps. even if this is a notable topic it would need to be renamed, removing the word "notable".Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * heres a book that appears to include information about famous fighting dogs - Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs, but it may be more appropriate to included it in a "Further reading" section of Dog fighting in the United States. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree—as with the 1700s British Parliamentary report on dog fighting, this out-of-print 1935 U.S. book could have relevant material but isn't going to be general enough to support an encyclopedia-quality standalone list of famous individual dogs. FourViolas (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:25, 9 August 2018 (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.