Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. -
Docg 01:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club
- Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twice speedied as
WP:CSD#A7, this is a club which exists mainly because te Kennel Club does not recognise this breed, which is the work of a very small number of owners. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Advert. Deletion! 13:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advert. ~ Flameviper 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Olde Delete per ye olde nom. Edison 15:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And why isn't it "Kennelle Clubbe"? Tevildo 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and what the hell is with all the "bulldogge" stuff on AfD lately? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are no credible and non-trivial sources for this organization, so delete per ]
- Comment: If this has been speedied and recreated twice, surely it can be speedied and salted instead of Afd'd? —The preceding ]
- Speedy Delete and then put a chain-link fence around it to prevent recreation. Third time is a charm, afterall. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and kennel and sic rabid cats upon it. Third time's a charm. SkierRMH 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep: Again, people not doing ANY research before making ignorant statements about a topic they're unfamiliar with. This is a DOCUMENTED NON-PROFIT Corporation established in the interest of a specific breed of dog, the Olde English Bulldogge. This is how all the breeds that are currently recognized by the large regisrtries (American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, etc...) got started. This organization is currently working very closely with the AKC and UKC to become recognized by said registries. Recognizing legitimate organizations like this is how the public BECOMES educated about rare dog breeds. Don Pelon 05:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)•[reply]
- However, it is not the role of Wikipedia to do that education. Serpent's Choice 06:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, You can claim Wikipedia to be anything you want. However, as an informational resource the website by default is recognized as an educational tool. By the basic structure of the website and the way it acquires and disseminates infromation it is FAR more of an educational tool than it is a source of entertainment. Simply because one SAYS or WRITEs that the sky is green doesn't mean that it is. The evidence speaks for itself...Pages FULL of unverified data input by a variety of different people that nobody can verify as legitimate experts on the topics that they input into this website. Therefore, as a Public Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is by default an OPEN EDUCATIONAL TOOL. You are right when you say it is not Wikipedia's job to educate which is why I added the information to the website myself. The responsibility of educating is that of the people inputting the information into the website. Again, as a public encyclopedia or educational tool, it is Wikipedia's obligation to acknowledge NEW and ongoing information. Consequently, assisting their researchers to EDUCATE themselves. BTW, I appreciate your reasonable and mature response. The internet far to pampid with keyboard warriors that would NEVER have the confidence to someones face the way they do on internet forums. Don Pelon 17:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words, because this might someday BECOME notable and have verifiable information written, we should just kick back and wait for it to happen? I don't think so. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and this Kennel Club has not demonstrated any evidence of notability. A cursory search shows a homepage, negligable mentions in lists, and Wikipedia articles and their mirrors. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh brother...Here we go with the pompous, arrogance again...lol. The internet is such a tough guy haven. As for notability go to the | American Rare Breed Association. This organization has been recognizing the Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club for the past 5 years as the breeds breed club. If we were to hold 70% or better of the information in this website to your criteria of notability(a couple of internet searches...lolol) it would fail miserabley. Again, because you have no knowledge of this organization beyond what you read on the internet or what it represents. I can only assume based off of your childish, snide remarks that your arrogance in using the term "WE" is referring to the general public. Well, nobody is asking "YOU" to wait for anything. The OEBKC is offering information to the general public in the exact same manner that all the other information on this website is offered to the general public. I'm new to this non-sense, so please forgive my ignorance for not knowing all the cute little acronyms everyone uses.Don Pelon 18:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It's generally considered rude to directly insult someone by calling them childish and arrogant. If you would like to know more about what is considered a good reliable source, please see the following:
- However, it is not the role of Wikipedia
- Information on Notability
- Information on Verifiability
- Information on Reliable Sources
- Information on
- Articles must demonstrate an ability to meet these criteria to be included in Wikipedia. It may be that many other articles also fail to fit these guidelines. This is an argument for their exclusion, not an argument for the inclusion of this material. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles must demonstrate an ability to meet these criteria to be included in Wikipedia. It may be that many other articles also fail to fit these guidelines. This is an argument for their exclusion, not an argument for the inclusion of this material.
Ah huh...Now that's much better, constructive advice instead of rude sarcasm, Thank you. I looked at your suggestions and I will be happy to utilize them in improving on this article. In fact, I apologize for not doing this in the first place when I created the page. I'm new to this format and I was a little short on time when I put the article together. I also wasn't quite sure what format to follow based on my statement above regarding other articles on this website, so I did the best I could with the time I had. Once again, thank you for the change of tune and I look forward to your advice in the future. I will be working to improve this article in the next couple of days.Don Pelon 04:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.