Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pit Bull (2nd nomination)

relevance of article

I dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Wikipedia is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. Evereadyo2 (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep International laws are flawed as they specific "Pit Bull", not "American Pit Bull" or any specific breed in their dangerous dogs legislation. Seriously, go google it. The term is a phrase used to describe a group of dogs (I was sure that there were two more breed sections next to the American Pit Bull Terrier back when it was a GA Nom - not sure where they've vanished to). The article needs further expansion, not deletion. Miyagawa   (talk)  10:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Further - just managed to dig back into the history and add the missing Am. Staff and Staff sections back in. Miyagawa   (talk)  10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - malicious nomination by vandalism-only account Rcawsey (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)