Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olde Boston 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 delete. Although some sources were brought up during the debate, these didn't appear to convince the other participants. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Olde Boston Bulldogge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails GNG, none of the sources are close to being reliable. Cavalryman (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are quite a few fake breeds being promoted on the internet so please exercise caution when checking the reliability of sources, especially when it's a purported "breed" registry for a dog that is not recognized by the many long-established and trusted official breed registries. If the registry claims to be an "alternative registry", or it is privately owned/operated for-profit with their own inspectors, or make claims to be a "rare breed registry"  they are probably not a RS.  We must closely adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:GNG and WP:RS when citing material about dog breeds or types.  Atsme  Talk 📧 17:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding - according to "About the author", the book The Bully Breeds was authored by ...a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. The original book was self-published, and contains only 2 paragraphs about the Olde Boston Bulldogge, all of which is based on anecdotal information. Another cited source is a website called Bulldog information which is owned by an individual, and considered an unreliable source per WP:RS.  There is not one source cited in the article that one could consider a RS to (1) verify the information about the Olde English Bulldogge, or (2) establish GNG. Atsme  Talk 📧 03:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic seems reasonably well covered in sources such as The Bully Breeds. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - as outlined above by editors Cavalryman and Atsme. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that this !vote was solicited by Atme. The related activity at the Wikiproject by these three -- Cavalryman, Atme and Gareth -- does not seem neutral. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I contacted all active WP:WikiProject Dog members & collaborators per WP:PAGs. GGJ is a collaborator, an interested party in this topic area, and it is an insult to his integrity to call him non-neutral.  It is normal procedure to notify collaborators/project members and I am offended by the accusation made by Andrew, which should be stricken.  Of further note, Andrew D. is citing a questionable source that makes a brief passing mention of this so-called “rare breed” and calls it “reasonably well covered”?  Dogs do not get the same auto-inclusion benefit extended to officially/scientifically identified and documented species.  Inclusion is based on GNG and this so-called rare breed fails the requirement.  The sources being claimed as RS are not and should be researched further to verify context, rather than accepting Andrew D’s assumptions at face value - do the research as I and others have done and see if you can find multiple secondary and third party RS to meet GNG requirements.  Rare breeds rarely have multiple  RS and are born of anecdotal reports for profit centers. Until they are recognized by RS and/or long established breed registries they simply fail GNG. Stop the use of WP as a promotional/marketing arm for puppy mills, non-notable crossbreeds and unsubstantiated “original and rare” breeds.  NOT:PROMOTION, NOT:SOAPBOX, NOT:INDISCRIMINATE COLLECTION.   Atsme  Talk 📧 16:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * i see that this afd is listed at the dogs wikiproject alerts section so not sure why specific members of the project needed to be notified of this afd, assuming that as active members of this project they will have the project page watched (unless they have edited this article), contacting editors directly about a specific afd may not really help, editors may feel uncomfortable about contributing if contacted. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, - and that is not what I was doing.  Look at the diff provided by Andrew - it says nothing about this AfD.  Now look at my proposal, which explains why I've been communicating with other project members and trying to encourage more participation. Atsme  Talk 📧 00:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for response. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment (Warning, this may be deemed frivolous), anything that includes "olde" in the title and superfluous "e"s is suspect. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete largely per nom and Atsme. I am not satisfied this really exists. Sourcing is altogether inadequate. For now the article seriously fails WP:V and WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book notes: "Most breeders, of course, are not trying to create something new. In some cases, in fact, they are trying to re-create something old, like the folks at Good Time Bostonettes, a kennel dedicated to the resurrection of the Olde Boston Bulldogge [sic], an antecedent of the Boston terrier but a little bigger, not necessarily black and white, and not much seen for the past century. I suppose it is a creative impulse to re-create a historic breed, like wanting to restore an Avanti, only with living tissue. But to the breeder, the Olde Boston Bulldogge rights a historic wrong wrought by none other than the fancy itself: [quote] The Olde Boston is only one of a raft of niche bulldogs currently in development, such as the Dorset Old Thyme Bulldogge, the Alphalfa Bluebood Bulldog, the Olde English Bulldogge, the Catahoula Bulldog, the Victorian Bulldog, the Mallorquin Bulldog (Ca de Bou in the original Catalan), and the Buldogue Campiero. Some of these are attempts to revive defunct breeds, others the creation of stylin' breeders."  The book notes: "The Olde Boston Bulldogge Olde Boston Bulldogges are the direct descendants of the dogs from which Boston Terriers were developed. Those early crosses produced numerous specimens that were heavier and lower stationed, closer to the Bulldog than to the terrier end of the spectrum. These became Olde Boston Bulldogges, and today they form a rare and distinct race. The late Neil Rutan and his family have done much to preserve these dogs and to re-establish them as a breed. As per the IEOBA standard for the breed, they 'should be of small to medium height and size (not toy-sized) with a round compact head and a solid, muscular and athletic body. The disposition should be outgoing, loyal, lively and intelligent. The temperament is to be very stable and trustworthy. Olde Boston Bulldogges are healthy working dogs without serious health problems. Unlike their Boston Terrier cousins, males should be free breeders and females should be free whelpers. The Old Boston Bulldogge should be devoid of all breathing problems. Most importantly, the Olde Boston Bulldogge is still a working Bulldog, and as the Bulldogges of Olde, function should come before form.' Today's Boston Terriers weigh under 25 lb; they possess a distinctly terrier frame and, of course, those batlike ears that we presume came from early crosses with French Bulldogs. In comparison, Olde Boston Bulldogges are bigger, at 25–45 lb, and stronger, and their short ears can be naturally erect, drop or rose. These Bulldogges come in all of the typical Bulldog colors, without the color and pattern restrictions of their terrier cousins, although naturally some of them do possess a Boston Terrier-like paint job. So here we have a small 'working' Bulldog." The book includes a photo of an Olde Boston Bulldogge and notes, "Above: While some Olde Boston Bulldogges have coloration similar to that of a Boston Terrier, the range of Bulldog color and markings is acceptable. This is Good Times Terra." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Olde Boston Bulldogge to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)</ul>
 * I am also reviewing results from Newspapers.com: https://go.newspapers.com/results.php?query=%22Olde+Boston+Bulldogge%22. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Newspaper.com results are primarily newspaper advertisements. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Some passing mentions in The New York Times and a 2002 Simon & Schuster book:<ol><li> The article notes: "Those looking to score fashion points with dogs also learn that, as in the stock market, the biggest rewards often go to those who make bets on out-of-favor issues. Want a tip? Forget Boston terriers. Online, I find that breeders are already working to revive a behemoth alter ego of the breed that they're calling the Olde Boston Bulldogge, which can grow to 45 pounds."</li><li> The "Olde Boston Bulldogge" has a simple listing on page 12 of the book with no further details.</li></ol>Cunard (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cunard, “significant coverage” (mentions in several RS) does not automatically mean a topic has encyclopedic value - context matters. WP:GNG states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information..  We should not use WP to further the promotion of breed fanciers promoting a non-notable breed as “rare” or as a “designer breed” which basically raises the price of the dog - it’s a marketing ploy.  The 2004 NYTimes article comparing it to the stock market - “make bets on out of favor issues” - supports my position.  We need to be far more discriminating about these types of things, especially considering that article was published 15 years ago and the Olde Boston Bulldogge is still not recognized by long established, reputable breed registries which are the axiom for purebred dogs.  WP should not be used as a conduit for such promotion. When/if the breed is officially recognized, then we can include it as a breed in WP - editors should not have to conduct OR for verifiability or in an effort to establish notability. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 12:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment:In my opinion, I do not accept anything printed by newspaper or magazine journalists as reliable. These either have no expertise on the subject or they can misinterpret what an expert has told them because they do not understand the basics of the subject. Regarding the two books, Gingold is a freelance writer, has no expertise in the subject, and the text quoted appears to be promoting a farm that breeds this dog for sale by marketing it as being special. However, Harris appears to be an expert, the book has 4 editors to maintain its quality, and of interest it refers to IOEBA. The subject currently has one potential reliable source; it is up to editors to decide if this source meets the "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" criterion. If it is decided that this book does meet this criteria, then all that we have established is that this cross-breed exists; there still remains the issue of WP:RELIABLE material that could be used to create an encyclopedic article, as we do not have WP:SIGCOV.  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 22:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I provided links to The New York Times and the Simon & Schuster book to provide more context about Olde Boston Bulldogge. I consider the original two sources to provide enough coverage about Olde Boston Bulldogge to establish notability per Notability. Alfred Gingold has written about dogs during his career for publications like The New York Times (link) and for Slate (link) and the book is published in the reputable publisher Broadway Books so I consider his book to be a reputable source. Regarding the marketing ploy concerns, the article can be revised to point out people are trying to market the breed (from The New York Times, "breeders are already working to revive" the breed). Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * delete Is UCA a reliable association? Moreover maybe this breed esists but two only books can't satisfy notability requirments--Pierpao (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at best merge, to a related real breed, in summary form as a section. Aside from all the issues addressed above, this is a WP:NFT problem. WP is not for backyard-breeder experiments (especially unscientific "de-extinction" nonsense). To the extent there is any sourcing about this at all outside of WP:UGC junk, none of it is in-depth, and it's not consistent, treating the subject as an experimental crossbreed, a sub-breed, a breed re-creation (which is not actually genetically possible), a fake breed for marketing to suckers, etc. It's routine to either delete or summarize and merge when a subject cannot be clearly delineated, is dubious as to veracity, of no or uncertain lasting encyclopedic significance as a stand-alone topic, or simply redundant with existing better material. This seems to be all of those at once, and WP doesn't exist for promoting alleged breeds not recognized by any legitimate registry organization anyway. There's a lot of money in dog breeding, thus a lot of incentive to try to use WP for advertising. Not every cluster of domesticated animals or plants someone sticks a name on constitutes a breed in any sense WP and its readership will care about. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 17:08, 7 September 2019 (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.