Jump to content

Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Pit bull?: maybe we should call an RfC because these last minute IDONTLIKEIT calls are disruptive
Line 218: Line 218:
::::::::If you have the sources that have published similar information to what KC & AKC have published we can certainly add them in the Recognition section. The only reason AKC is in the lead is to distinguish the Staffordshire as a separate breed from the [[American Staffordshire Terrier]] which has its own article, so if there exists a Canadian Staffie, an Australian & New Zealand Staffie that need to be distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers, then yes, we need to include them in the lead. [[User:Atsme|<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"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)
::::::::If you have the sources that have published similar information to what KC & AKC have published we can certainly add them in the Recognition section. The only reason AKC is in the lead is to distinguish the Staffordshire as a separate breed from the [[American Staffordshire Terrier]] which has its own article, so if there exists a Canadian Staffie, an Australian & New Zealand Staffie that need to be distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers, then yes, we need to include them in the lead. [[User:Atsme|<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"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Atsme}}, I support the inclusion of the AKC recognition within the article (I added it) just not the lead, above the lead is already the distinguish template. [[User:Cavalryman V31|Cavalryman V31]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman V31|talk]]) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
:::::::::{{u|Atsme}}, I support the inclusion of the AKC recognition within the article (I added it) just not the lead, above the lead is already the distinguish template. [[User:Cavalryman V31|Cavalryman V31]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman V31|talk]]) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC).
::::::::::Cavalryman, {{WP:DONTLIKEIT}} is not a convincing reason to remove material from the lead. It has been there for nearly a month now, and the only thing that has changed is the article is now a GAC. I may be wrong, but I doubt that an RfC will return the results you want, but if you are that determined to have it removed from the lead, I can withdraw this GAC if your intention is to call an RfC to resolve the issue once and for all. Is that what you want? [[User:Atsme|<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"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


{{outdent}}
{{outdent}}

Revision as of 21:41, 9 July 2019

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

Request received to merge articles: Irish Bull Terrier into Staffordshire Bull Terrier; dated: November 2018. Proposer's Rationale: Irish Bull Terrier aka Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier should be merged here (or possibly create a redirect and add a paragraph explaining the crux of this 2002 article published in Telegraph - or maybe a speedy would be appropriate. It's a fictitious breed, has no recognized breed registry or any RS that either verifies such a breed exists or passes WP:GNG. Atsme✍🏻📧 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirects have been executed as consensus to merge is obvious. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Off-topic digression ...
  • SMcCandlish was just deleted my citations from a book and the information that came from the book that was in the article. I would ask him to put the information back with the citations. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia! IQ125 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did nothing of the sort; you're blaming the wrong editor. However, your mass-revert clobbered EVERY recent edit by everyone at that page, and even stripped out the merge tag. Please be more careful. I've undone your mass-revert and re-inserted your source and the details from it. (A {{minnow}} to whoever did delete that; you be more careful, too, please.) Also did some citation cleanup. PS: The source in question doesn't establish this as a breed, either. The fact that the dogs exist and have been used for fighting and ratting isn't disputed by anyone. This just isn't a distinct enough population – especially as mongrelized cross-breed – to warrant a stand-alone article. We do have some articles on cross-breeds, like Labradoodle, but only because they have an overwhelming amount of secondary-source material written about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the editor who deleted them. The book is an unreliable source, in limited print by a non-notable author, and is obviously self-published by a marketing firm. confused face icon Just curious...IQ125, did you author that book or know the person who did? Atsme✍🏻📧 14:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, are we talking about the same source? The TFH Publications I know of is a major publisher of high-quality breeding and pet-keeping works; their reptile and amphibian encyclopedia is arguably the best in the world.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was referring to Barker, Shaun (2000). Staffordshire Bull Terriers (English and Irish). Northbrook Publishing. ISBN 978-1857362428. Diff. The edits & reverts became confusing. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Okay. Well, at some point, someone did nuke the ref to the TFH source, and I restored that one (cited twice, including in the lead). I don't care who did it. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there's a good chance that these are just general mutts crossing multiple breeds of the pit bull type. As such, I think the target is not the best choice, as merging to the SBT article specifically would only reinforce the misidentification of these dogs. There's actually very little of the article worth saving, other than a minor mention that some have taken to using spurious claims to sell dogs of the pit bull type in the UK, which can actually best be covered in the section of the pit bull article on breed specific legislation. So that is where I would merge it, not the Staffordshire Bull Terrier article. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Merger Are two AMAZON books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Staffordshire-Terriers-English-Canine-Library/dp/185736242X/ref=sr_1_1?ie= and https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Staffordshire-Bull-Terrier-Guide/dp/1526907267 other unreliable sources ? Dr Nobody (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nobody - please post your question at WP:RSN but be prepared to verify that each book was authored by a credible author and not just a breed enthusiast, that the books were not self-published and contain verifiable information based on the credibility of their cited sources. In other words, if they cite WP as a source, that's a big no-no. Also, refer back to my suggestions on your TP. Atsme✍🏻📧 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish" Staffordshire section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Done. Many thanks, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Atsme, I would like to propose new wording for the above section: 

In the United Kingdom American Pit Bull Terriers are sometimes advertised as "Irish" Staffordshire Bull Terriers in an attempt to circumvent the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.[1]  The appearance of the Irish Staffordshire, which is not recognised by any kennel club or breed registry, is attributed by the RSPCA to be contributing "to a rise in incidents of dog fighting", the editor of Dogs Today magazine described the breed as "complete fiction".[1]
Sources

  1. ^ a b Daniel Foggo and Adam Lusher, "Trade in 'Irish' pit bulls flouts dog law", telegraph.co.uk, published 2 June 2002. (Archived 3 August 2018).

Bearing in mind the breed-specific legislation section already includes the first sentence above and talks about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, I feel this new wording deals with all of the information without placing too much weight on topic with a single source. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The merge was quite an uphill endeavor which is one of the reasons I was specific about not a breed, etc. I have no objection to your version. Atsme Talk 📧 22:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 2019: Staffie as a pit bull

Hello BlueMoonlet, do you not feel the breed specific legislation section places WP:UNDUE weight on a subject that does not even pertain to this breed in the only jurisdiction mentioned? Also the Irish Staffie section given the sources state it is a euphemism for American Pit Bull Terrier?

Additionally, your edit reverted attempts to correct the spelling, the Use British English template has been on this article since 2013, wholly fair for a British subject.

Further, can I suggest you read MOS:SEEALSO, it advises against the "See also" section repeating links that appear in the article's navigation boxes. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

And further still, your contention that the Staffie can be considered a pit bull is clearly far from universal, British law prohibits such dogs and the Staffie is very much legal within Britain. If that reference is to be retained, it should be removed from the lead section as it is not an accurate summary of the breed, but a regional interpretation. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I apologize for not checking my edit more carefully. My only intention was to restore the sourced content to the lead section. The changes to the rest of the article were unintentional.
Your link labeled "British law" is not relevant. That law prohibits dogs "known as the pit bull terrier," so it does not apply to the Staffie but rather to the APBT. To say that the Staffie is part of the pit bull family is not to say that it is dangerous, nor that it is or should be prohibited. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonlet, the Staffie is only defined as a pit bull within some North American juristictions, nowhere else (the closest I can find in a non-North American publication is the "Bull and Terrier, sometimes referred to as the 'Pit Dog'."[1]). Further, not all of the references you keep including back up your statement, and all of those that do are American.

Looking at the page's history you added this statement on 2 Jun 15, since then multiple editors have tried to remove it and it has only been you that has consistently replaced it (5 Jun 15, 15 Jun 15, 25 Jun 15, 6 Jul 15, 12 Jul 15, 14 Jul 15, 28 Aug 15, 17 Sep 15, 24 Sep 15, 26 Oct 15, 19 Jul 16, 21 May 18, 19 Jul 18, 13 Mar 19, 20 Mar 19 and again today).

This does not belong in the article's lead (MOS:LEAD states "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"), to do so is WP:UNDUE. Instead it belongs in the article's body, and it is there. Regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ James Beaufoy, Staffordshire Bull Terriers: a practical guide for owners and breeders, Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd., 2016, ISBN 9781785000973.
Concur 100%. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support removal from the lead per UNDUE; adding that I restored the paragraph (Irish Staffordshire) resulting from the 22 November 2018 merge per consensus as noted in the TP banner. Atsme Talk 📧 13:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalryman V31: This topic was discussed at some length in 2015. I hope and trust that all who have registered their opinions so far (that is, Gareth Griffith-Jones and Atsme as well as yourself) will read the discussions at Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1#Contradiction with Pit Bull Terrier article - Are Staffy's Pits? and Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/Archive 1#Quality of this article, and will then let us know whether they retain the same views, and if so how they would argue against the points that were made in the past.

When people remove consensus information they don't like from an article, without making any coherent argument for doing so, it is perfectly in keeping with WP policy to revert their edits. Of course, we are now having a discussion, so this incidence does not fall under that description. I mention this in order to explain the past actions of mine that you have pointed out.

To summarize the argument, legal definitions are not important here, but rather the heritage of the breed. It seems abundantly clear that SBTs are descended from bull-type dogs that fought in pits. It may well be that SBTs have since been carefully bred to not have the temperament of a fighting dog, but that does not mean that they aren't pit bulls, any more than (hypothetically) a modern Golden Retriever's lack of birding instinct would mean it isn't a retriever. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more highlights from the previous discussion:

  • I really do sympathize with lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull. However, the remedy should be to dispel the stereotype and to help the public realize that pit bulls are often very good dogs, not to deny (what seems to me) the manifestly true statement that staffies are a form of pit bull.
  • The book I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog by Ken Foster contains the following quote: "For some lovers of the American pit bull terrier... 'pit bull' is embraced as shorthand for their breed. However, fans of the American Staffordshire terrier and English Staffordshire terrier are usually quick to tell you that their breeds are not pit bulls. To the general public, all three dogs are perceived as pit bulls, along with variations of the American bulldog, bull terriers, bullmastiffs, and even boxers, as well as mixes of these breeds." This highlights the fact that staffie lovers (such as yourself, I infer) do not like to be associated with the term "pit bull," but that such an association is in fact the basis for how people generally use the word. And if that is not how we determine what a word means, I don't know what is.

Argument by assertion (which is what I've seen so far in this discussion) does not stand up against citations to reliable sources (which I've provided). Furthermore, a single sentence in the lead section is hardly WP:Undue Weight. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it raises justifiable concern when we are faced with relentless insistence to identify the fighting dog ancestry of Staffordshire Bull Terriers with modern day pit bulls, especially in the lead, and that is venturing into WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT territory. The lead does not eliminate the breed's ancestry - it specifically mentions that it is a descendant of 19th century fighting dogs, which is accurate and compliant with DUE. What carries far more WEIGHT is not its ancestry; rather, it's what the breed registries accept as the breed standard per this AKC article (my bold underline for emphasis): "From his brawling past, the muscular but agile Staffordshire Bull Terrier retains the traits of courage and tenacity. Happily, good breeding transformed this former gladiator into a mild, playful companion with a special feel for kids." Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them. Dog Time states "...but he is a breed unto himself with distinct physical characteristics that set him apart, including size and ear shape." This Animal Planet states: ...a dog originally bred for fighting to be so wonderful with kids, but the Staffordshire Bull Terrier really is. RS describe the dog as a terrier, not a pit bull. Atsme Talk 📧 19:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonlet, devoting one of three sentences in the lead to a regionally specific classification is 100% UNDUE. Your new reference (which has not been introduced before now) simply affirms that this is a term used within North America.
No one here is arguning that it should not be included in the article, and it is included, but it should not be included in the lead as does not "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Atsme: I am shocked that you accuse me of intransigence when we have hardly even begun to exchange our views. What you just wrote is the first move towards engagement between our views that I've seen so far, and it comes paired with a stated assumption of bad faith. Wow.
Cavalryman V31: If you look through the past edits that you meticulously compiled, you'll see that I'm a Good Dog was long a cited source in this article. It does appear to have fallen by the wayside during the periodic edit warring instigated over the years by people who popped up and removed this content for little stated reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This sneaky edit appears to be the culprit.
Your argument that we should discount reliable sources simply because I (an American) am citing mostly sources from America is hard to swallow. A reliable source is a reliable source. The fact that some reliable sources do not mention the identification of SBTs as pit bulls (but don't contradict it) does not invalidate reliable sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonlet, as I have said repeatedly, no-one is saying it should be excluded entirely, but to include it in the lead is UNDUE, it is not a broadly held classification for this breed but a regional grouping. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
The current wording mentions pit bulls only in the context of breed-specific legislation, which entirely misses the point. We are talking about what kinds of dogs these are, on a more fundamental level.
Let's review the sources that I originally submitted in 2015 (it appears that one was removed and two others were added since that time without my notice, but as you've pointed out, the additional sources are not very relevant):
  • Merriam-Webster[1] defines "pit bull" as "a dog... of any of several breeds... that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity" (wording slightly updated from what was cited in 2015). This clearly applies to SBTs, and this alone should put the onus on you to find sources denying that SBTs are pit bulls, and not just to rely on a perceived paucity or regionality of sources that say they are.
  • A court in Colorado[2] defined a "pit bull" as a dog of several breeds including SBTs. Please note that this is a statement about what is and isn't a pit bull, not specifically about whether there should be restrictions on this type of dog
  • No less an authoritative (and dog-friendly) source than the ASPCA declares[3] that the "pit bull class of dogs" includes the SBT. Here again, the wording here is clearly a declaration regarding what the ASPCA considers to be a pit bull, even though the purpose is to argue against BSL.
  • The book I'm a Good Dog, which meets the WP:RS criteria for published material, declares[4] that pit bulls are generally considered to denote a group of breeds including SBTs.
Not until Atsme posted yesterday have any sources been offered to support the opposing viewpoint. All three of Atsme's sources ([1][2][3]) reference the dog's fighting origin but don't use the term "pit bull." This does not amount to a declaration that SBTs are not pit bulls, just a decision not to mention the fact. Atsme remarks here that "Pit bull is a type of dog, not a breed and we should not conflate them." That is exactly the point I am making!
--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonlet, the opposing viewpoint is yours alone at this point. 3 editors have disagreed with your position. I stand by what I said yesterday. You still haven't dropped the stick, so your comment about being shocked over what you referred to as an allegation of intransigence is, in retrospect, no longer an allegation. You have provided supporting evidence by refusing to accept local consensus. If you want wider community input, then by all means, call an RfC and be done with it. I will gladly accept whatever is agreed to by a wider consensus. Atsme Talk 📧 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, Wikipedia is not a vote. Three people who say I don't like it is no reason for someone with reasonable and well-sourced arguments to stand down. Only very recently have you and your compatriots started to say something more substantial than "I don't like it," and I am attending to that. The aspersions you are casting are inappropriate and against the spirit of Wikipedia. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonlet, you calling everyone with a different point of view to your own “lovers of staffies who do not want their dogs to be associated with the stereotype of a vicious pit bull” is casting aspersions. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ Merriam-Webster. "Pit bull". Retrieved 22 March 2019. a dog... of any of several breeds... that was originally developed for fighting and is noted for strength, stamina, and tenacity
  2. ^ Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1173 (10th Cir. Colo. 2009). http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pit-bull/. Retrieved 22 March 2019. A "pit bull" is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ ASPCA. "The Truth About Pit Bulls". Retrieved 22 March 2019. Regulated breeds typically comprise the "pit bull" class of dogs, including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and English Bull Terriers.
  4. ^ Foster, Ken (2012). I'm a Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America's Most Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Dog. New York: Viking Studio. For some lovers of the American pit bull terrier... 'pit bull' is embraced as shorthand for their breed. However, fans of the American Staffordshire terrier and English Staffordshire terrier are usually quick to tell you that their breeds are not pit bulls. To the general public, all three dogs are perceived as pit bulls, along with variations of the American bulldog, bull terriers, bullmastiffs, and even boxers, as well as mixes of these breeds.

British Commonwealth definitions

BlueMoonlet, let’s go through this again:

  • Within Britain:
    • British law prohibits “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”
    • the Oxford dictionary defines the Pit bull (including the synonym of Pit bull terrier) as “a dog of an American variety of bull terrier, noted for its ferocity.”
    • the Cambridge dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of Pit bull) as “a type of dog that is often considered to be aggressive and is used for fighting other dogs as entertainment.” It further clarified that in American English it is “a type of small dog with a wide chest and short hair, known for its strength and sometimes trained to fight.”
    • again, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is very much legal within Britain
    • ∴ within Britain the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect
  • Within Australia:
    • New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria all restrict ownership of the American Pit Bull Terrier (and all include the synonym of Pit Bull Terrier)
    • the Macquarie dictionary defines the Pit bull terrier (including the synonym of “Pit Bull”) as “a stocky strong muscular dog with a short stiff coat usually of fawn and white colouring, originally bred for hunting and dog-fighting and widely regarded as aggressive and dangerous”
    • none of them restrict ownership of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier
    • ∴ within Australia the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is incorrect

Again, the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a pit bull is restricted to North America, the article reflects this and the lead very definitely should not. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Cavalryman V31, I don't know what you mean by "again." This is the first time that anybody has made this argument with anything resembling this level of careful sourcing. Up to now, I have seen nothing but your bare assertion that we are dealing with a regional variation, but now I see some evidence. Let me consider and come back to you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the legal restrictions have always been beside the point, in my opinion. "Pit bull terrier" can be taken as a synonym for the APBT, so of course everyone agrees that bans on such a dog does not apply to SBTs. It's the dictionaries you've just cited that are of interest to me. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 23:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonlet, you are the one who continues to use the Colorado legal definition as an example. Here’s another for you, the Collins COBUILD dictionary gives a definition for pit bull as “A pit bull terrier or a pit bull is a very fierce kind of dog. Some people train pit bull terriers to fight other dogs. It is illegal to own one in the UK.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
And another from the Chambers dictionary, “pit bull terrier noun a large breed of bull terrier, originally developed for dogfighting. Often shortened to pit bull.” Cavalryman V31 (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Main image

I think a more illustrative main image is needed. This current image (File:Staffordshire Bull Terrier "Chaman".jpg) is not very illustrative, the dog has his back to the camera. I recommend this ones below (or similars). Adventurous36 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Adventurous36, you are wrong. The correct image in the info' box must be a four-legged sideways stance. Cheers! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adventurous36, I agree with Gareth Griffith-Jones, the current image is the best of those available. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose suggested changes. I will try to get a good profile shot of a male and female (representative of the breed standard) at the next AKC show I'm able to attend. If I can't get it done, I'll ask around to see who can oblige. Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following images on Pixabay, all with a CC0 license:

I really like the white stacked dog (side profile) for the infobox - maybe with the 3/4 pose below the infobox. The other pictures, especially the puppy, one of the blacks from either gallery, and the brindle in Adventurous36 gallery would add a nice touch as a right side lineup or as a gallery in the article. AKC Breed Standard says Red, fawn, white, black or blue,or any of these colors with white. Any shade of brindle or any shade of brindle with white. Black-and-tan or liver color to be disqualified. Atsme Talk 📧 18:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice! The two images below are the best in my opinion. Thank you. Adventurous36 (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with...

I think the Template message below needs a complement Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Not to be confused with Bull Terrier.

My suggestion:

Not to be confused with Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier.

Adventurous36 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Staffordshire Bull Terrier

This breed is the old pre 1948 standard of the Kennel Club SBT and as there are hundreds if not thousands spread throughout the Commonwealth. They are not APBT being several inches shorter with a different shaped head resembling a coal scuttle not a brick. They are also lighter and smaller then the AST or the American Bully and more athletic than the short legged SBT Kennel Club version. May I request this section closed to deletion to prevent personal bias.

see http://www.staffordmall.com/1935standard.htm

The dog writer David Hancock has written a book (Sporting terriers[1])and several articles mentioning the "Irish Staffie". A number of his previously published articles available on his website include "Saluting the Staffie", "Terriers of Ireland" and "Terrorising the Terrier". Unfortunately he is the only author I can find who makes mention of these dogs and he provides little actual information about their appearance. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ David Hancock, Sporting terriers: their form, their function and their future, Ramsbury, Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd., 2009, ISBN 978-0-7566-6004-8.

Potential GA

Notice to the most recent article watchers - Dwanyewest, Calvaryman, GG-J - just letting you know that I'll be copy editing, and making some updates/additions/clarifications to the article today so don't be concerned about the activity. I will add an "in use" template on the page, and ask that while the template is up, please wait until I've removed it before you make any edits, and if you have any concerns, let's please discuss it here on the TP. I would like to prime this article as a potential GA and possibly DYK so whoever wants to get involved in either or both of the processes let me know. Happy editing! Atsme Talk 📧 14:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I just tweaked the lead, and will work on the History section later, so if after you proof-read it, and find any discrepencies, etc., please discuss it here. Atsme Talk 📧 19:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pit bull?

Whilst heading for a WP:GAC review, there is a section that refers to the staffie as a "pitbull". The reference is the ASCPA website, which states: "Regulated breeds typically comprise the “pit bull” class of dogs, including American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and English Bull Terriers."

That might simply be a matter of personal phrasing used by the no-name author. You would be unwise to state that "In the United States they are classified as pit bull types" based on that one web-site reference. Does any legislation in the US actually classify the staffie as a pitbull? If not, the term should be removed from the article. Good Article status warrants good quality referencing. William Harris • (talk) • 09:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that to our attention, William Harris. I have adjusted the wording to more accurately reflect the source. The ASPCA is a highly reputable source, and in this particular article, they explain why they believe breed-specific legislation does more harm than good. Atsme Talk 📧 16:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the reading I did during the above pit bull discussion, it appeared that only some jurisdictions in the US and Canada place restrictions on the Staffie, can I suggest we change the current wording from “around the world” to “North American” just list the two countries? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, Cavalryman V31. Exactly my thoughts. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It just needs to be cited to a RS. What did you have in mind? Atsme Talk 📧 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not convinced that a statement by an American organisation regarding city laws in the US can be generalised into "A number of federal and municipal governments around the world have placed restrictions on the ownership of the "pit bull class" of dogs......" Here is something you may be able to use, it relates only to the US, but it is directly quoted and would need to be reworded:
"It has been estimated that as of 2009, restrictions regarding ownership of dozens of breeds were in place in more than 300 jurisdictions in the US. Most, but not all, breed-specific ordinances in the US include with the term ‘pit bull’ the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, and Staffordshire bull terrier, along with dogs that, based upon their appearance, are deemed to resemble these breeds."[1]
Additionally, second paragraph last sentence. The AKC view on breed specific legislation does not warrant a place in the lede because it is off-topic - is there nothing more we can say about the Staffie here? William Harristalk 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than provide specifics, the lead is summarized and I included the country names rather than saying "world-wide". I also moved the last sentence to the relevant section. Thanks for pointing that out. Atsme Talk 📧 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of the KC, I question putting any other Kennel Club recognition into the lead, if the AKC why not the CKC, the ANKC, the NZKC etc? I think the last sentence should be dropped altogether. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
If you have the sources that have published similar information to what KC & AKC have published we can certainly add them in the Recognition section. The only reason AKC is in the lead is to distinguish the Staffordshire as a separate breed from the American Staffordshire Terrier which has its own article, so if there exists a Canadian Staffie, an Australian & New Zealand Staffie that need to be distinguished from Staffordshire Bull Terriers, then yes, we need to include them in the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 14:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, I support the inclusion of the AKC recognition within the article (I added it) just not the lead, above the lead is already the distinguish template. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Cavalryman,
"WP:ATA" redirects here. For other arguments to avoid, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid (disambiguation).
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.
Wikipedia discussions
Arguments to avoid in
Arguments to make
Common outcomes

This page details arguments that are commonly seen in deletion discussions that have been identified as generally unsound and unconvincing. These are arguments that should generally be avoided – or at the least supplemented with a better-grounded rationale for the position taken, whether that be "keep", "delete" or some other objective. Some of the infirm arguments covered are those that are irrelevant or at best side issues, do not address the merits of the reason to keep or delete, are based on anecdote rather than evidence, engage in classic logical fallacies and more—and almost all share the trait of not being based upon the issues listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. It is important when taking part in deletion discussions to anchor one's rationale in relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as notability, verifiability, what Wikipedia is not, neutral point of view, no original research and biographies of living people. The arguments covered on this page are far from exhaustive. If an argument you were planning on using is listed here, you might want to reconsider using it. However, just because an argument appears in this list does not necessarily mean it is always invalid.

Remember that a discussion rationale which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", may still contain the germ of a valid point. For example, if a person argues that an article is interesting, and in making that point, cites evidence that could also be used to support a determination of notability, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below).

While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. (see also WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages)

Arguments without arguments

Shortcut

This section is about deletion arguments that do not seem to make sense, and otherwise do not point at or even make correct usage of policies or guidelines whatsoever.

Just a vote

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

This is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As WP:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" or "Speedy keep" or even "Weak keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present persuasive reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it is an argument based on cogent reasons.

Per nominator/X

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes (see also § Just a vote). Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of § I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.

If the rationale provided in a comment includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of that argument may be sufficient. (Example: "Delete per nom. I find their argument that such and such policy is not met compelling")

Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT position.

Per majority

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

See also: WP:Follow the leader and WP:OUTCAST

Examples:

AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.

Consensus can change, and it is not uncommon for attitudes to shift during a deletion discussion. When it seems after just a few days that it'll surely go one way, often one single statement can turn the tide. Also, articles can be improved over the course of a discussion, leading others to change their minds. It can be the statement or the salvaging work of one person who is at first in the minority that makes all the difference.

Just unencyclopedic/doesn't belong

Shortcuts
"WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC" and "WP:BELONG" redirect here. For policy on unencyclopedic content, see WP:What Wikipedia is not § Encyclopedic content. For page possessiveness, see WP:Ownership of content.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

What shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia, what Wikipedia is not, has been defined by consensus. However, this includes many types of things, each having its own section within that or another policy. Therefore, the terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. What we need to know are the specific reasons why the article should or should not be included. Otherwise, you just leave us guessing as to what you meant. Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how? An example of a well-specified deletion nomination is "The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and therefore violates WP:NOT#DICDEF".

There must be sources

Main page: WP:But there must be sources!
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Don't just claim that there must be sources out there somewhere. Instead, prove it, by providing them.

We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have, without having seen them. Any claim that sources exist must be verifiable, and unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable.

Just notable/Just not notable

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline".

Instead of just saying, "Non-notable", consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability; this is often seen when trying to assert notability under a sub-guideline (like music or internet content). Self-promoting wannabes have, for example, tried to get themselves into Wikipedia by falsely claiming to pass a notability criterion that they did not actually pass — musicians claiming charting hits that never really charted, writers claiming award nominations they were never really given, etc. — so the notability test is not passed just by stating passage of a notability criterion, but rather requires reliably sourced verification that the claim to passing a notability criterion is true. Additionally, the subject may possibly pass WP:N, but fails a more stringent set of standards: for example, articles about notable living people may be deleted if they are marginally notable, and must be deleted if they are defamatory. The standards of inclusion don't mandate inclusion; they merely suggest it.

Just pointing at a policy or guideline

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation" or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

Keep in mind that articles can often be improved, and may not need to be deleted if the specific problems can be identified and corrected (see surmountable problems, below.)

Also, while citing essays that summarize a position can be useful shorthand, citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised, for the reasons explained above.

Assertion of notability

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

An assertion of importance or significance (not "notability", as such, though these are often and unfortunately conflated and confused) is related to a potential reason to delete an article, but not one that is relevant at Articles for Deletion, where the merits of notability are determined. This formula is the purview of CSD A7, A9 and A11, three of the criteria for speedy deletion. These criteria are a test of what is seen in the article content and only apply to specific subject areas and conditions. If an article on an A7- A9- or A11-eligible topic does not make a credible assertion of importance or significance for that topic, it should be nominated for speedy deletion, which is a much faster and simpler process than nomination at Articles for Deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is based on whether the topic itself meets the criteria – not on what is or is not currently in the article. Thus, whether an article asserts significance for its topic is not germane when notability is at issue at an AfD discussion; what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it, regardless of the present state of the article.

Begging for mercy

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Such arguments make no use of policy or guidelines whatsoever. They are merely a campaign on the part of the commentator to alter others' points-of-view. They are of no help in reaching a consensus, and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either.

You should also make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's canvassing guidelines before you solicit "votes" one way or the other in a discussion.

If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space.

Over the years, several templates have been created to be placed on top of pages indicating that they are new and may take time to complete to Wikipedia's standards. These include {{newpage}}, {{construction}}, and {{newlist}}. If such a template is found on a newly created page, as a common courtesy, new page patrollers and others should not rush to delete the page unless it is obvious that it can never meet inclusion guidelines. If one is uncertain of this, or if it appears no progress has been made in a reasonable amount of time, the creator should be contacted regarding their intentions, and given a reasonable amount of time to reply. It is recommended for one who is considering putting it up for deletion to consider userfication as an alternative.

Won or did not win something

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Yes, it's true that subjects winning notable awards or landing on "best of" year-end lists by independent publications can significantly impact their notability. However, arguments which base notability or lack thereof upon winning, wins, success or popularity make no use of policies or guidelines. In fact, plenty of subjects, like The Room, Birdemic: Shock and Terror, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, and Hotel Mario, are significantly important and covered in several reliable sources due to their unusual amount of failure. We do not have articles only because people and/or organizations are successful; everyone and everything makes mistakes! We have articles rather because they are notable and have verifiable and reliable sources. If a celebrity or organization is "failing", then the content can mention that failure in a neutral point-of-view, provided there are reliable sources. In short: Just because a celebrity or organization is "losing" doesn't mean it's not notable!

Further, awards do not necessarily confer inherent notability on their winners. It is necessary to establish that the award itself is notable in the first place, by virtue of being broadly reported upon by the media as a news story. For instance, a major national film, literary or music award that gets media coverage is a valid notability claim, while a regional, local or special interest award that lacks media coverage and can only be referenced to its own self-published primary source content is not. For some prominent awards that curate and announce shortlists of nominees in advance of announcing the final winner, such as the Academy Awards or the Grammy Awards, the nomination itself can be a sufficient notability claim for a nominee, whether or not they win.

However, there have still been some instances of award nominees and winners who were deleted because of an inability to locate enough solid sources to actually support an article. For example, it may be much harder to actually write and properly source articles about a film's sound technician(s) than it is about the film's actors or director. Just as with winners, a nomination for a major award of this type is generally sufficient if the article can be reliably sourced, but may not be sufficient if you have to depend exclusively on primary sources.

Note as well that some of our subject-specific notability criteria do in fact take winning into account. For example, our notability criteria for politicians generally require holding a notable office rather than just running for one and losing, and non-winning competitors in reality shows are not automatically notable just because they were on a reality show. Note losing in one competition/event does not preclude being notable for other reasons, such as being notable in other areas (for example, Cynthia Nixon), holding a notable public office (for example, Hillary Clinton), or accomplishing separate notable achievements beyond appearing in a reality show (for example, Jon Dorenbos and Jennifer Hudson).

Not built

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Such arguments make no use of policies or guidelines to substantiate claims of non-notability. A thing that is never built may still be historically significant as a proposal, with enough coverage to clear WP:GNG regardless of the plan's failure to ever actually come to fruition, and people ten or twenty years from now may very well still be looking for information about what the proposal was and why it failed.

Personal point of view

Shortcut
See also: WP:I just don't like it and WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Personal taste

This section covers deletion arguments based on personal biases rather than policies or guidelines.

I like it

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example:

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals, and potentially any subject or topic may be liked or disliked by some editor somewhere. However, personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content.

As stated at WP:Verifiability:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

In other words, a person or group may well be the greatest example of what they do in the history of everything, but if no other verifiable reliable sources have been written about them that are relevant to the scope of the article, they cannot be included. If your favourite song/computer game/webcomic/whatever is as great as you believe, someone will likely write about it eventually, so please just be patient.

In general, the scope and purpose of the article must be kept in mind when considering inclusion or exclusion of information or sources. When sources significantly deviate from the scope of an article's topic, or subject, this may create room for disputes. Therefore, careful considerations such as weight and relevance should also be taken into account in making decisions.

I don't like it

Shortcuts
See also: WP:I just don't like it

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.)

This may include subjective opinions concerning the usage of fair use images (see also WP:NFCC), and the inclusion of what may be deemed trivia, or cruft. For example, while the "cruft" label is often used for anything perceived to be of minor interest (such as individual songs, or episodes of a TV show), it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential for verifiable inclusion.

They don't like it

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

And on the converse of that converse (see I don't like it, directly above), while some editors may feel that deleting a page would be playing into the hands of a certain group, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be kept. Wikipedia is not censored, but this fact does not supersede its guidelines on notability, verifiability, neutral point of view, original research, etc. In addition, if such an argument is used against the nominator specifically, it constitutes a failure to assume the nominator's good faith and if severe enough may constitute a personal attack.

It does sometimes happen, of course, that a user will nominate an article for deletion out of a desire to censor or hide the content, but one should be able to respond to these nominations with reliable sources and policy-based arguments. If the deletion rationale really is that thin, it should be easy to refute.

It's interesting

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

See also I like it and I don't like it, above.

It's useful/useless

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it should include encyclopedic content. All encyclopedic content should be useful to someone, but not all content useful to someone is encyclopedic. Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its encyclopedic value. You need to say why something is useful or useless. This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. Arguments of something's usefulness, uselessness, or value devoid of further context are not valid or persuasive.

A list of all phone numbers in New York City would be useful, but Wikipedia is not a directory. A page defining the word useful would be useful, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we have Wiktionary for that. A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide; we have Wikivoyage for that.

Usefulness is subjective, and a cogent argument must be more specific: who is the content useful for, and why? One has to consider the number of people that are likely to find utility in the information. In particular, tables are meant to provide information of direct utility for the reader. In addition, one must consider utility as relating to the rest of the site: e.g. "this list brings together related topics in X, and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument.

Building a solid case for deletion on the basis of uselessness is unlikely because of Wikipedia's notability policy. All of this project's notability criteria imply that knowledge about a subject that meets them is useful. Whether it's through substantial coverage in reliable sources, receipt of major awards, winning international competitions, or writing oft-cited scientific papers, we can infer that somebody has found the subject to be of substantial interest. Therefore, if information about a subject is genuinely of no use here, the better bet is to argue against inclusion on the grounds of a lack of notability.

Wikipedia is not the place to seek publicity for a cause, product, individual, ideology, etc. Promotional or partisan "information" in particular generally fails Wikipedia's requirements of neutrality and verifiability. See also WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOBLECAUSE.

It's harmful/harmless

"WP:NOHARM" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Avoiding harm.
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

No content on Wikipedia is censored. Just because an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean the article should be kept. For example, if there has not been any verifiable information published in reliable sources about the subject, then there is no way to check whether the information in the article is true, and it may damage the reputation of the subject and the project. Even if it is true, without the ability to check it, false information could very well start to seep in.

As for articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. (See below for that.)

But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information: the potential readership or subjective usefulness of each item does not have to be justified if the material is notable.

The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. For more information and arguments, see the Meta articles Inclusionism and Deletionism.

Note that in miscellany for deletion debates, whether or not something is harmful is often a relevant issue, since the rules provide that inherently disruptive pages, for instance, may be deleted. The argument "it's not hurting anything" is less persuasive, however, when WP:NOT clearly prohibits the content in question (e.g. a full-fledged blog in userspace) from being hosted here.

Whether something is harmful or harmless are also valid arguments for and against deletion of redirects at Redirects for discussion. This normally centres around harm (or lack of) to the encyclopedia, e.g. from a redirect being misleading or in the way of other content. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect?.

It's funny

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a repository of humor. Articles cannot be kept for their humor value alone, nor are they outright disqualified because they are on a topic an editor finds humorous. Furthermore, the intensely subjective nature of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria (what is funny to one person may be dull and uninteresting to another; and perhaps downright offensive to a third.) This does not mean articles on humor-related topics have no place on Wikipedia, as the "Humour" category shows, and even unintentionally funny articles are welcome. Articles should be kept or rejected because of ideas such as notability, verifiability, and lack of original research – not because they meet an editor's subjective view of humor. There are more appropriate places, even on Wikipedia, than in the article space.

I don't get it

Examples

Wikipedia is not a place for you to judge other people's humor. Articles cannot be deleted because of your view on humor, nor can they usually be created as such, even under the "Humor" category. Some articles can be created because of someone's view of humor, but these are usually created as sarcastic essays.

It looks good/bad

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether the subject of the article is justifiably suitable for an article on Wikipedia.

Surmountable problems

See also: WP:Deletion is not cleanup
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

A common maxim is that "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. (If there is no usable content, however, it may well be best to delete.)

Note: The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted has been a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. However, some articles do reach the so-called TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and gives editors a clean slate. This in itself is a controversial maxim, as essays such as WP:TNTTNT demonstrate.

Poorly written article

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.

By the same token, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility.

Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the title. There is a simple solution to this: rename it! If you are not able to move the article yourself for one reason or another, request someone else do it rather than nominate the whole article for deletion.

With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option. For example, problems like copyright infringement, advertising, patent nonsense, or unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people, need to be resolved as quickly as possible.

Offline sources only

Further information: WP:Offline sources
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.
Examples:

On Wikipedia, we assume good faith. There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Offline sources are just as legitimate as those that are accessible to everyone online. If offline sources, even exclusively offline sources, are used to reference an article, we give the creator (and other contributors) the benefit of the doubt in accepting their accuracy. Since Wikipedia is written collaboratively, it is always possible for other editors to add online sources on top of the offline ones already there. However, this is not a requirement, and they need not exist to sustain the article.

If an editor seeking deletion believes the creator placed fictitious references in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion. This will only occur with definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious, and not based simply on a hunch. As with the offline sources themselves, online proof that they do not exist is not needed. Good faith is assumed just as much if the editor seeking deletion knows beyond a reasonable doubt that the source does not exist or does not state what is in the article.

Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

Shortcuts
See also: WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement)

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline.

The article shouldn't be deleted for its current status only because no one has improved it yet. Such deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Conversely it's not enough to promise to make the article better; editors should explain how to do it. If the editor fails to follow through on the promise, other editors who arrive later can step in and keep improving it. This way, the article's fate is not dependent on one single editor doing the work; Wikipedia is written in a collaborative way.

A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process.

In some other cases, especially list articles describing a finite set, the article may already be complete and current. Such an article thus hasn't been worked on in X amount of time because there's nothing that needs to be added to it at the present time.

Not all articles on Wikipedia look perfect. Most readers on Wikipedia already know they won't get all the information they are looking for from Wikipedia alone. Even if an article is not the best, even if it remains that way for many years, it can still provide some readers with just what they're looking for, and this is enough to make it worthy.

The concept of ownership of articles is typically thought of to oppose a creator's rights to have it their own way. It can also be extended to say that once an article has been created and it meets inclusion guidelines, the creator has no obligation thereafter to maintain the article. Therefore, if one creates an article that appears to meet guidelines for a standalone article, but abandons any effort to complete or update it thereafter, regardless of whether that editor has been actively editing on Wikipedia, the article cannot be deleted on these grounds.

When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field, removing unverifiable content and stubbing the article, or redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article, are better choices than deleting.

Exceptions:

  • Articles that are unambiguous advertising or promotion may be speedy deleted; less unambiguous cases might well be deleted at articles for deletion, if there is little to no content worth saving.
  • While these sorts of arguments may not be good arguments for deletion, they are excellent arguments for a merge in cases where an excessive number of subarticles exists. Merge is a perfectly acceptable vote in a deletion discussion.
See also:

Orphan status

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

An article being an orphan (having few or no incoming links) can pose some problems. But it does not imply a lack of notability, and therefore is not a valid reason for exclusion. An orphan is still capable of having reliable sources, and many do.

De-orphaning articles and providing incoming links is a goal in improving the encyclopedia, not a requirement. Many orphans were created by newbies who are not familiar with the need to add references or to create incoming links. Some subjects are just very hard to link from anything. If reliable sources can be provided, even if incoming links can't, it is still notable.

Out of date

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia is a work-in-progress encyclopedia, which means that it is not finished nor will it ever be. As in a paper encyclopedia, information on Wikipedia will often become inaccurate because it is simply out of date. But unlike a paper encyclopedia, in which a new edition is printed maybe every year or so, Wikipedia can be updated anytime. There is a very simple solution to all that: Change it! All you have to do is to click "edit", make the necessary changes, and save the changes, writing in the edit summary that you are updating the information. If you do not wish to make the effort to do that yourself but you know it needs to be done, you can also place {{update}} on the top of the page or section. To consider a page for deletion on the basis that it is not up to date is to demolish the house while it is being built.

Susceptibility to policy violations

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia has remedies in place to tackle its policy violation issues. Vandals, sock puppets, and edit warriors can be blocked. Articles can be protected. Sock puppets and canvassers can be traced. Templates can be placed on a page to let readers and editors know how it has to be fixed. If inaccurate information is frequently added erroneously but in good faith, this can be discussed until a consensus is reached.

It's not neutral

Shortcut

The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it.

Just not notable (I've never heard of merger or redirection)

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds. (Since "merger" includes a history merge without redirection, an argument against redirection is not an argument against merger). Since any verifiable topic/content can in principle be redirected/merged to an article on a broader topic, this should be exceptionally difficult. Valid arguments against merger might be based on WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT or WP:BLP, in particular. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). Valid arguments against redirection must be based on the criteria specified in WP:R (that the proposed redirect is clearly positively harmful). The only valid argument for "delete then redirect" is that every revision in the page history of the page otherwise eligible for redirection in question meets the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). See further WP:ATD.

Notability fallacies

Existence

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Further information: WP:Existence ≠ Notability and WP:Existence does not prove notability

Examples:

Existence is important. The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information drawn from identifiable sources (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion. There are various other guidelines that must be met, mostly found in WP:N. But it goes beyond that. If we wrote articles for everything that existed, we would end up writing about you, or your computer, or that leaf that fell in your pool the other day, or even that rock that keeps tripping you up on your morning walks. The last one was kind of ridiculous, but hopefully you understand what we are trying to say here: existence does not always yield notability!

As for the lack of existence, there are rare cases when this can be notable. There have, for example, been hoaxes which attained notability because they were hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man.

A related phenomenon is the fallacy of entitlement: the notion that mere existence automatically entitles someone or something to a Wikipedia article, and thus the need to create an article is so important that any form of sourcing is acceptable regardless of whether or not it meets reliable sourcing standards. However, Wikipedia's role is not to be about everything, or to help under-covered topics create their media presence. We are not a free public relations platform to advertise topics that haven't already received media attention — our role here is to follow media coverage, not to lead it. Before addressing "how can this topic get into Wikipedia if it doesn't have media coverage yet?", the question "why does this topic have to get into Wikipedia?" must be answered.

Google test

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

See also: Wikipedia:Search engine test § General, and Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers

Examples:

Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. For instance, WP:BIO specifically states, Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god.

The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed. As well, numerous hits that refer to X as "Y" can demonstrate that "Y" is a plausible redirect to the article on X; the redirects for discussion process, unlike articles for deletion, will often hinge on matters such as plausibility and numbers of search engine results.

Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at WP:Search engine test.

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News, are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search. However, since an article can be verified as notable entirely by offline sources such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that an article should be kept or deleted.

Article age

Shortcuts
"WP:NEWARTICLE" redirects here. For a step-by-step process to create an article, see WP:Article wizard.
See also: WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Unchallenged material (or content age)

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Take, for example, Gaius Flavius Antoninus, a hoax article that lasted for more than eight years before getting discovered and deleted. Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age either because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently, or because the collective interpretation of our inclusion criteria has evolved. Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Wikipedia's guidelines or just by de facto practice could be put up for deletion.

However, note that the fact that an article has not been edited in a long time is also not grounds for deletion, as explained above.

Conversely, being a new creation does not protect an article from being nominated for deletion. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Wikipedia it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is. Remember that all articles are works in progress, and this is not by itself reason to keep an article. It is recommended to work on a new article in draft space or in userspace before moving it into mainspace, to avoid it being nominated for deletion in an obviously unfinished state.

However, note also that the current low quality of an article is also not a reason to delete it, as explained above. Articles should be judged on their potential, not just current state.

Subject age

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Shortcuts

Examples

These arguments are analogous to those above with regard to article age. Notability is not established by how long a thing has existed, or how far back in time a tradition may go, or how venerable the people are who are involved in it, or how yellowed the pages that once mentioned it. Neither can notability be denied based on the subject's newness, inexperience, or youth. The criteria for notability include evidence of the non-trivial discussion of the subject in multiple reliable verifiable independent secondary sources. Assertions based on age or evidence of age are, by themselves, as meaningless as those based on personal knowledge or on dislike of the subject matter. Certainly what is old has had more chance to be noted, and what is new generally has not. But we do not decide which articles to keep and which to delete based on chances, we base it on the quality and nature of its citations.

Subject no longer exists

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Notability is not temporary. The continuing existence of an article does not depend on the continuing existence of its subject. Even if it is a thing of the past, if sources can display its notability in the same way as a subject that exists today, then it qualifies no less for an article. It does not matter if the cessation of the subject occurred before or after the creation of the article. Even if links to the sources are no longer active, if the writer(s) of the article do the best possible job of documenting what they are, the article shall meet the standards for reliable sources. Wikipedia's goal is not merely to be a directory of things and people that currently exist today – defunct corporations and ghost towns and dead people can still be notable, and can still have legitimate and reliably sourceable reasons why readers might be looking for information about who and what they were.

The only way a subject can be truly declared "no longer notable" is if the actual notability guidelines change to exclude the subject. Many of Wikipedia's notability standards are stricter now than they were a decade ago, so some articles that were formerly accepted as notable do fail contemporary standards; consensus can change, so such articles do not stay "grandfathered" in Wikipedia just because they used to be acceptable, but are deleted (or redirected to a related topic) if they cannot be improved to meet contemporary notability standards.

Pageview stats

Shortcuts
See also: Help:Pageview stats

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

Simply because a page is not of interest to Wikipedia readers does not mean it is not notable. Conversely, just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope, although article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability which should then be straightforward to verify. Redirects for discussion is an exception to this provision; a redirect is more likely to be deleted if it receives very few hits, on the grounds that it is implausible, than if it receives many.

Support for article

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. If you comment on the basis of the numbers already seen as in the above examples, you are just adding a vote to those numbers and not contributing usefully to the discussion. And drawing others to cast such votes may be canvassing.

Many AfDs in the past have had a outcome that contradicts the numbers, and many will in the future. It is possible for an AfD that has 1 keep and 10 deletes to be kept (or vice versa) if that single argument is really good and the remainder are just votes. However, community consensus is frequently taken into consideration when closing the discussion of an article's deletion, and although consensus is not identical to voting, indication of consensus as demonstrated by a large proportion of well-argued votes on one side or the other of a discussion is likely to factor heavily in the final decision.

Number of editors involved

"WP:INVOLVE" redirects here. For policies, guidelines and guidance about users involvement, see WP:Third opinion, WP:Non-admin closure § Editors who are uninvolved, and WP:Administrators § Involved admins.
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in the subject, but it does not measure the notability, the number of reliable sources, or its compliance with other inclusion guidelines. An article can be made into a good article, either by one person or by a dozen. And if no reliable sources exist at all, then no matter how many editors they are, they will not be found.

Articles are not owned, even by their creator, and they are not judged based on who created them, how active that creator is or was on Wikipedia, or how many people besides themselves are interested in editing them. It is not uncommon for an individual to create or edit a single article in their lifetime, all while providing valuable information, and then never edit again.

Neither the DYK process nor the GA process directly address notability. Experienced editors at both projects may notice a notability issue, and certainly the expectation is that a notability issue will be noticed in both places, but that isn't one of the areas either process directly addresses. In the case of GA, only a single reviewer is generally needed, so even when a reviewer does consider the question of notability, it represents a single person's opinion.

Article size

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An article could have many paragraphs or even pages of information. If any of that information is not and cannot be properly sourced, it does not belong, and if none of it belongs, neither does the article.

On the other hand, even a small amount of information meeting the general notability guideline can be eligible for inclusion, provided that other inclusion guidelines are met. Even if the article on a subject is very short, it may just be a stub waiting for expansion. Being "short" is not grounds for deletion.

As in a paper encyclopedia, some articles will be several pages long, others just a line or two. There is no minimum or maximum length that qualifies an article, just the reliable sourcing of the information. Since nothing is in stone, articles can grow, shrink, merge, split, and change in all different ways over time. But once the subject becomes clearly notable, they do not disappear.

Unreliable sources

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the reliable sources page. A subject's own site can be used to verify some information, but surely not to establish notability. Sites like blogs and personal pages that can be created or edited by anyone with little or no restriction are generally not seen as reliable sources of information. While such sites may be written in good faith and may be seen by some as accurate and/or neutral, there is little or no control or proof of these details, and there is even a chance they may have been created or edited by the very same person who created or contributed to the Wikipedia article.

On the other hand, blogs can be written by professional journalists and subject to editorial control, and personal sites can belong to established experts in the subject. There are also pages bearing the URLs of blogs that have mirrored news articles that do constitute reliable sources. For sites including user-generated content, assess whether the content is self-published or can be attributed to an independent professional writer with a record of reliable publishing. News sources that publish in a blog format may be as reliable as a traditional newspaper.

And keep in mind that while sources such as blogs aren't usually suitable for the purposes of establishing notability, they may be perfectly suitable for verifying information within an article whose notability has already been established by other means. In other words, removing information sourced to a blog is not the same as arguing for the deletion of an article – these are separate acts with different sets of criteria for performing them and should not be conflated.

Trivial coverage

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required, to the point that original research that involves extracting information is not needed. Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline. Once notability has been established, some of these sources may be useful in verifying additional information, but they should not be used as a reason why the subject is notable.

On the other hand, the notability guideline

doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material

, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view.

Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions

that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available.

It's in the news

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a news service—articles will not simply be kept because they are of timely importance. Due to its popularity, Wikipedia is many people's first port of call to find out more about a breaking story or other current event they've just heard about. Wikipedia does have articles that cover current events as well as those of the past, and it even selects certain newsworthy topics for display on the Main Page. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and keep arguments must take this into account. Wikipedia even has a sister project Wikinews, dedicated to hosting user generated news stories.

Basically, Wikipedia is not a place for routine coverage, such as locally reported crime, community issues, regularly scheduled sports events, trivial matters, and other topics that are found in the daily paper. It is not here to take the place of the newspaper, regular broadcasts, or other forms of media that are to be expected. Some events are indeed notable and worthy of inclusion. The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.

If you plan to use either the WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWS arguments (or other similar guidelines) to support keeping or deleting an article, it is important to be familiar with the guidelines to be sure what news belongs and what news does not. It may also help to get a sense of what types of events either do or don't customarily have articles.

Geographic scope

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Notability is not about assigning an elite status to a select group of subjects. It is about having the ability to write neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic-style information about them.

Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline requires multiple sources independent of the subject to cover the subject in order to establish notability. But this guideline does not specify the locality of the coverage. Having sources that under all circumstances meet this guideline means that it is notable, and therefore, worthy of an article. On the contrary, being spread out around a greater region, such as a country or the whole world, without satisfying notability requirements does not make a subject notable.

At the same time, subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH, which do require wider regionalized coverage, and non-winning candidates for political office are not accepted as notable just because local coverage of the election campaign exists in the local media where that campaign would have been simply expected to garner coverage. Rather, the question of whether local coverage is enough or not depends on variables like the strength of the basic notability claim and the volume of coverage that can be shown. For example, predominantly or purely local coverage may be enough to get the mayor of a major city into Wikipedia, because the notability claim is strong enough that the geographic range of coverage does not matter, but purely local coverage is not necessarily enough to get a city councillor or school board trustee in the same city, or the mayor of a small town, through the notability door — these people may still qualify for articles if something truly substantial, and referenced to a significant volume of media coverage about them, can be shown, but are not guaranteed articles just because one or two pieces of purely local media coverage exist.

Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the I've never heard of it argument. Many subjects are esoteric, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. For example, few people are aware or interested in some obscure forms of living things, space bodies, or scientific concepts, and few people will ever know about them in the first place in order to even desire to read about them. Yet there is sourced information about them, so they qualify to be included.

The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Wikipedia is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Wikipedia can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own.

Another question is where to draw the line on a subject as being "local". Local could mean limited to a city or town. But others may view a state, province, or other similar region as being local. And such divisions vary in size throughout the world. And though the boundaries of a jurisdiction are legally defined, determining a distance from that location in which coverage would be non-local is not possible.

One may ask: does it not make sense that one part of the world has more articles on its local interests than another with a greater population? If so, this is not because Wikipedia is ever intended to be this way. Numbers of articles are not written in direct proportion with the population distribution of the world. Each article is written because just one person living wherever chooses to write that article. And some areas just happen to have more dedicated writers. Anyone, including you, can be devoted to writing about your hometown. (See WP:Geographic imbalance.)

The Events Notability Guideline on the other hand does specify locality of coverage, recommending notable events more often have a national or international scope.

Arbitrary quantity

See also: WP:OLDAGE
"WP:ARBITRARY" redirects here. For arbitrary category, see WP:Overcategorization § Arbitrary inclusion criteria.
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

A commonly seen argument at AfD is "Subject has X number of Y, that's notable/non-notable". Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than because it has 1 million views on YouTube.

This does not apply to the position taken in WP:NUMBER that articles on actual numbers over a certain size need to establish several reasons why that particular number is notable, which is a well-defined threshold.

Subjective importance

For further information on this concept and more examples, see WP:Subjective importance
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Lots of things are well known to a select group of people. A person may be considered the greatest crocheter in a local crochet group, which may make her famous in that community, but that does not necessarily indicate she is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. If the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community, it's likely (but not always the case) that those sources are not reliable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Conversely, some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English-speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable.

This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions.

Crystal ball

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion. It is difficult to determine precisely what people believe in the present, even more difficult to predict how perceptions will change in the future, and completely unnecessary to even try. Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not.

Past inaction by sources

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of why people did not take notice in the past. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not. Note however that articles have been deleted under WP:BLP1E even when the subject's earlier actions were reported in the press (at a much later date) as a result of later actions (and in the context of those).

Past inaction by editors

Shortcut
See also: WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages § Inaction by editors

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

In general, articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. However, note that per the Biographies of living persons policy page, all BLP articles must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.

(See also § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.)

Notability is inherited

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Invalid criteria

Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy. Nor does it apply to speedy deletion or proposed deletion, as they are not deletion discussions. It only applies to arguments to avoid at WP:Articles for deletion. Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. This is usually phrased as "All ____ are notable", for example, "all high schools are notable" or "no elementary schools are notable".

Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject."

Notability requires verifiable evidence. This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence. They are only mere personal opinion as in the examples above.

Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that group. Discuss based upon the individual subject, not the subject's overarching classification or type. If a subject under discussion is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that.

In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.

Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable.

Donations of significant amounts of money naturally are reciprocated by a certain amount of publicity, including press releases and even naming of buildings or entire academic departments. The mere giving of money in and of itself does not make the donor notable, and press releases (or routine coverage based on such press releases) will not satisfy WP:GNG.

The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. Newborn babies are not notable except for an heir to a throne or similar.

Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady.

This does not mean that such associations are never claims of significance (significance is a lower standard than notability, used for sections A7, A9, and A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion); it simply means that the association does not by itself make the subject notable. Also, notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion; subjects can still be notable by other means and even when they are not, often such articles can be merged or redirected to the article on the associated subject (see also the Just not notable section above).

See also WP:Notability and WP:Summary Style.

Lots of sources

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. Search aggregators are also prone to picking up user-comments too. So it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject, rather than a hopeless stub. This also applies to lists of 'Media Coverage/In the News' sections on websites.

By the same token, do not base a keep argument solely on how many footnotes are present in the article. It is possible to generate footnotes by reference bombing it with dozens of footnotes that aren't actually building notability at all: social media posts, directory entries, blogs, sources that tangentially verify stray facts without actually mentioning the article subject at all, and so forth. The article's sources need to be measured for their quality and depth, in addition to the number of sources.

Wikipedias in other languages

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples

A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable.

Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Notability requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. Other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources. Many articles in other Wikipedias are based on translations of English Wikipedia articles. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. The hoax article Jean Moufot was first posted on the Dutch Wikipedia and then translated into several other languages, including English. Of course, if the other Wikipedia articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Wikipedia article, they can be added to it.

On the other hand, the fact that there are no interwikis does not mean that the article should be deleted. It may be the case that nobody has yet written an article on another language's Wikipedia or that it just hasn't been linked to from the English language article. It may also be the case that the topic is notable in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa.

Individual merit

What about article x?

Shortcuts
For an essay that discusses precedents outside deletion discussions, see WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments.
See also: WP:Notability, WP:OTHERCONTENT, and WP:Consistency in article titles

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case.

From the logical perspective, this argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as").

Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. For this very reason, WAX arguments in AFD discussions sometimes backfire, by directly causing the other article to be immediately nominated for deletion.

Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.

Note that this criterion also applies to the argument that an article has to be kept because it's a straight translation of an article that already exists in another language Wikipedia. All Wikipedias are vulnerable to the creation of articles about non-notable topics, and different-language Wikipedias may apply different notability standards to certain classes of topic — so the existence of an article on the French or Swedish or Urdu Wikipedias is not in and of itself an automatic exemption from the topic still having to clear the English Wikipedia's existing standards of sourcing and notability. Again, it may be that the other-language article needs to be deleted as well, and just hasn't been noticed by that Wikipedia's responsible editors yet.

Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: would the fact that there is an article on every Grey's Anatomy character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character on The Office? Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However, such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.

Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items.

When an editor introduces a novel type of article in Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether such organization of material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view and no original research. Other editors may argue that a certain type of article doesn't exist because of inherent violations of core policies; see WP:ATTACK for example. Dismissing such concerns simply by pointing to this essay is inappropriate.

(See also WP:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability and WP:Pokémon test.)

Other categories exist

Shortcut

The accepted practice around OSE applies differently to categories, because in some cases consistency is a desired trait of categorization schemes. WP:CFD nominations regularly point out, for a new scheme, that "Other stuff doesn't exist" – in other words, this is a new scheme that would imply creation of many hundreds or thousands of new categories if expanded globally, and there may not be consensus for expanding it more broadly. As such, an appeal to "Other similar category schemes don't – and shouldn't – exist" may be an appropriate argument for arguing for deletion of a category. There are no hard and fast rules here, and there are cases where existence (or non-existence) of one scheme does not have much bearing on whether a similar scheme should be created in a different tree, but it should be noted that OSE/OCE arguments tend to apply differently in category space than they do in article space.

All or nothing

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

The status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. The process may have been applied inappropriately, people may not have seen the other articles yet, or consensus may have changed. As well, articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article. While some avant-garde performance artists, or college professors, or elementary schools, or blogs (for example) are mentioned in enough independent, extensive references to write an article, others are not. The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles. Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. That said, there are precedents that may have an impact on a deletion discussion.

Meta-reasoning

Wikipedia should be about everything

See also: WP:NOTHING
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" does not necessarily mean "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what articles should be kept, and a due weight policy on what facts are minority views. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything" and not an indiscriminate collection of anything verifiable. So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

Do not lose the information or the effort

Shortcuts
"WP:LOSE" redirects here. For Wikipedia is not about losing or winning, see WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. For the essay on losing a discussion gracefully, see WP:How to lose.

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines.

In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles or contributed to other wikis. Note that an argument from WP:PRESERVE does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion when material has been merged, as all contribution information may be lost, invalidating the licensing for the article.

Deleted work can be restored to your personal page or to the draft namespace on request to an administrator. It is also usually possible for the information to be restored if the article passes a deletion review.

Better here than there

Shortcut

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Example:

Unencyclopedic material does not belong in any article. Material sometimes called "trivia" or "in popular culture" may or may not be appropriate for inclusion, either as a part of a main article or in a spin-off article. But unsourced or totally unimportant material does not belong in either, not in the main article nor a sub-article split off to keep it separate from the main article. Trivia sections in articles should be avoided, as Wikipedia is not a trivia repository. Foo in popular culture articles may be viable, as are articles devoted specifically to aspects such as "use in fiction" or "cultural influences", if reliable sources establish that it is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. But unsourced material of no importance has no place on Wikipedia. Either incorporate the material in the main article with appropriate sources, find appropriate justification and sources for the spin-off article or consider that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

That's only a guideline, proposal or essay

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Main page: WP:The value of essays
See also: WP:Quote your own essay

Examples:

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay, proposal or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Proposals, in addition to their primary function, also summarize positions, opinions and arguments. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" or "only a proposal" may be misleading. It also essentially suggests that the opinion of the person citing the page (as well as those of the people who originally wrote the page) is invalid when it may not be. There are many reasons why some arguments presented at deletion debates are invalid, based around the substance of the argument or the logic employed in reaching it. "The page you linked to is an essay or proposal" is not one of them.

Guidelines do indeed have exceptions; however, it is unhelpful to suggest "WP:EXAMPLE is only a guideline, we do not have to follow it". We have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Rather than using a page's "guideline" designation as an excuse to make an exception, suggest reasons why an exception should be made.

In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy.

Now, it does happen that someone will be a proponent of following some notability guideline without any exception. Guidelines do explicitly say that there will be common sense exceptions to them. In those cases, it is fair to point out that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines 100% of the time if there is a good reason to break them. But you should try to make a reasonable argument for why this particular case is one of those exceptions. Guidelines are usually followed for good reasons, so there should be a good reason for departing from their guidance.

Arguments to the person

See also: Ad hominem
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors. Even well-respected editors sometimes create pages that others feel should be deleted, and likewise, newbies and those who have created many unworthy articles still have the potential to contribute good writings and have made many really good contributions.

There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. Wikipedia is not a club of winners and losers. If a user is disrupting the encyclopedia by continually creating articles that get deleted or continually nominating good articles for deletion, an investigation may be called for into their behavior; this is an independent issue and its result one way or the other should not influence deletion discussions.

Remember, when you comment, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith never help.

However, pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block may be speedily deleted, if there're no substantial edits by others. Such pages must be tagged with {{db-g5|name of banned user}} or {{db-banned|name of banned user}}. This criteria does not apply to pages created before the ban or block, or to pages of topics unrelated to the topic of the ban (unless it is a complete site ban).

As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found.

Repeated nominations

Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend "Keep" (or even "speedy keep"), arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances but a bad argument in others. An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.

If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.

If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.

Repeated nominations for deletion do not necessarily indicate that the article is problematic. No extra weight is given to the rationales offered by nominators over rationales offered, whether for or against deletion, by other discussion participants. An article's survival of multiple AFDs indicates that the reasons given by the nominators, along with those given by others in favor of deletion, repeatedly didn't prevail over the arguments given by those who were opposed.

Blackmail

Shortcuts

Examples:

Editors sometimes issue ultimatums to get their way, threatening to quit editing. Or they will claim that current or future editors will be driven off by the wrong outcome. Similarly, an editor's desired outcome is tied to some outside criticism of Wikipedia, often in connection with statistics on the decline in new editors, or criticism of the reliability of Wikipedia. It may be valid to argue that a decision will move the encyclopedia closer to, or away from, what Wikipedia is not but a relevant argument should focus on the merits of the article.

Citing greater problems

Shortcut

Examples:

Wikipedia and related projects has a lot of problems, both proven and alleged, both big and small. There is a lot of bias, women are greatly underrepresented, and there are often allegations and concerns about power abuse and how to handle it. But a deletion discussion is about a specific article and not a place to right great wrongs with Wikipedia. Pointing out bias and abusive user behavior is not wrong, but doing nothing beside that does not contribute to consensus-building. Even if the outcome of a discussion could be considered problematic, Wikipedia is not governed like a court system and individual cases will usually not set an example for the future.

If you believe the opposing side in a discussion is an example of one of Wikipedia's greater issues, explain this to them in relation to the article itself and existing policy – do not view the discussion as being "symbolically" about settling right from wrong for the whole website. If you have a suggestion for how to improve the site unrelated to the discussion you find yourself in, you should use venues such as the Village pump, the Teahouse or one of the other places for centralized discussion.

Citing this page indiscriminately

Shortcut

Examples:

Used effectively, this page can be used to point out common types of fallacious reasoning. However, participants must still give a valid rationale in support of their position, rather than merely exposing the flaws in their opponents' reasoning. Moreover, they are not always bad arguments to make. If five people have voted to delete per nom and you're the only person considering whether to keep the article, maybe the nominator has laid out the case so well that no more needs to be said. Also, some stuff exists for a reason.

Outcomes based

Shortcuts

Example:

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an effective summary of how deletion discussions on Wikipedia tend to be resolved, but using it as the only argument for keeping or deleting an article can lead to circular reasoning. Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions. The results of this February 2017 RFC on secondary school notability describe how school AFDs should be evaluated.

Denying the antecedent

See also: Denying the antecedent
Shortcuts

Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions.

Examples:

Denying the antecedent (and its variants, like the fallacy fallacy) is a formal fallacy. It basically consists in confusing a necessary with a sufficient condition. All Wikipedia policies are necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficient. If the article meets one condition, it does not mean that it does not violate other policies: original research may be verifiable; articles that seem to be notable may be original research; notable biographies may be a violation of WP:BLP. The policies should be interpreted together and not alone.

Other arguments to avoid

The following links are to essays which describe various relevance fallacies, which should also be avoided in discussions.

See also

is not a convincing reason to remove material from the lead. It has been there for nearly a month now, and the only thing that has changed is the article is now a GAC. I may be wrong, but I doubt that an RfC will return the results you want, but if you are that determined to have it removed from the lead, I can withdraw this GAC if your intention is to call an RfC to resolve the issue once and for all. Is that what you want? Atsme Talk 📧 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: You have missed the most obvious source of BSL specifically listing Staffordshire Bull Terriers, while at the same time misunderstanding the citation you added to the article. Go to Breed-specific legislation and you will find "Staffordshire Bull Terrier" mentioned for the 14 countries Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Romania, Singapore, Spain and the United States... plus 12 of the United States of Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New York. If you go to the new citation you added [4] you will find not only links to the seven countries you think are the only ones, while missing the obvious link titled "Please see a full list of these countries" which links to the "mother lode" list [5] which lists BSL in 52 countries. Now if that ain't "worldwide", I don't know what is. — Nomopbs (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I did miss it, Nomopbs - and forgot to sign my last comment. Too many interruptions while I was trying to focus on this review. Thanks for correcting. Atsme Talk 📧 20:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, Nomopbs - I don't agree with your removal of large blocks of important encyclopedic information regarding the positions of various notable organizations. Please discuss on the TP before any further BRD while this GA review is in process. Thank you. 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: I edited the section in the article. Made it short and sweet. Basically just covers where is Staffie IN or OUT of BSL. No frills. Straight to the point. See main article for BSL for further discussion. I think you'll like the new version. — Nomopbs (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: WTF!?!? You didn't even read it! Try again! — Nomopbs (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and a "no frills" BSL is not compliant with NPOV. The views of notable organizations belong in the article, and it's important for our readers to know why certain dogs were included on that list. There is opposition to such legislation, and we include it. Atsme Talk 📧 21:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my points:

  • The first sentence is a compounded sentence creating WP:SYNTH. The ASPCA citation did not lump those other breeds in with the pit bulls. The ASPCA article mentioned the other breeds separately. Combining them together like this is not only WP:SYNTH but is irrelevant to the subject of Staffordshire Bull Terriers.
  • Sentence two is irrelevant to the Staffie article. It is also an advocacy opinion. See WP:NOTADVOCACY.
  • Sentence three is an "excuse" and is also advocacy and part of a debate that has no place in this article.
  • Sentence four is completely irrelevant to the article.
  • Sentence five is fine, but in your haste to revert my edit, you didn't even re-edit the contributions I made to that sentence, such as the wikilinks to other articles.

A better rendition of the section would be to cover where Staffordshire Bull Terrier and BSL come together, such as WHERE is Staffie included, where is staffie excluded. The "why" is opinion and would only cover one side of an argument and anything you write here will be too limiting to cover the entirety of WHY Staffies are not included in breed prohibited lists for UK, Aus & NZ.

Use this version instead:

Though a number of federal and municipal governments around the world[18] have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and typically lists several breeds including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier,[19] Staffies are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.[5]
In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier included in the list of dog breeds prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but the idea was rejected by Parliament. The RSPCA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home all objected to the proposed ban.[20]

Nomopbs (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or flip the sentence around: "Although Staffordshire Bull Terriers are excluded from the BSL breed lists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, a number of federal and municipal governments around the world have placed restrictions on the ownership of the pit bull class of dogs and list several breeds, specifically including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier." Nomopbs (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

  1. ^ Olson, K.R.; Levy, J.K.; Norby, B.; Crandall, M.M.; Broadhurst, J.E.; Jacks, S.; Barton, R.C.; Zimmerman, M.S. (2015). "Inconsistent identification of pit bull-type dogs by shelter staff". The Veterinary Journal. 206 (2): 197–202. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2015.07.019.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Staffordshire Bull Terrier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Far too long since I reviewed one of your articles! I'll have a look soon, and though I find them very interesting, I'm not exactly a dog expert, so William Harris is free to chime in here if he has anything to add (I saw he already commented on the talk page). Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some citations are used in the intro that art not used in the article body; the intro should not have unique info, and therefore no unique citations, as it is only supposed to summarise the article body. Therefore, the intro doesn't need citations for non-controversial info either. checkY
  • There are a few duplinks in the article body, they can be highlighted with this script (easy to install):[6] checkY
  • "the dogs weigh 29 to 37 pounds (13 to 17 kg) and the bitches" Is it common terminology to only call the males "dogs"?checkY
  • WP:Galleries without context are generally discouraged, so I'd suggest removing it, and if any of the images are important, move them to where they would make sense in the article. checkY
Still seeing a gallery? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears checkY
Interesting, never seen such hidden captions before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image has three different source links, only the first appears to be correct.checkY
Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC) checkY[reply]
Removed wikilinks in info box (if that's what you meant)
I meant on the file page, I removed them myself with this edit[7], so feel free to add the wikilinks you removed back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were an (A) on Commons. Kewl. Atsme Talk 📧 19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sections, especially the first ones, seem rather short, is there no more info to add there?checkY
  • The sourcing of this[8] image seems rather dubious. checkY
  • Likewise with this[9] one, how has it been established that the author is "unknown"? checkY
  • "Common nicknames Stafford & Staffie" I wonder if a comma would be better than "&" for clarity. Especially since one other breed mentioned even has the word "and" in its name.checkY
  • What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? checkY See section Popularity (again)19:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Life span Over 12 years" This should also be stated under health, with source.checkY
  • Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname halfway down the article? You even switch between adjacent sentences. Would probably be best to be consistent. checkY - see reason below
  • You also seem to switch randomly between KC and Kennel Club. checkY - see reason below
  • You use both ise and ize endings; since this is a UK related article, best to stick with ise.checkY
  • I think it would be better if the history section was chronological; the Early protection covers a time before that covered in Recognition, so should logically come first. checkY
Arranged chronologically in subsections. 12:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "subject of Sir Percy FitzPatrick’s book Jock of the Bushveld." Could give date for the book.checkY
  • "not to be confused with the American Staffordshire Terrier which is a distinctly separate breed." Not really stated outside the intro, and could use some elaboration,. What is the relation between the two, and why the same name? checkY
  • "In the US, the ASPCA" What is that? Anything to link? Could also be spelled out, like you do with most other organisations. checkY
  • You also use the abbreviation AKC before spelling it out. ?? See lede where it's spelled out.
Personally, I also spell out terms at first mention outside the intro, but I'm not sure what the guidelines say, so no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2018 PETA lobbied the British Parliament to have the Staffordshire Bull Terrier added to the list" Why? I thought they were for animal rights? checkY
  • "James Hinks of Birmingham, England was founder of the Bull Terrier." Why is this info about a different breed relevant in the intro here? Also, he is not linked outside the intro. checkY check it now...I've clarified the Hinks connection whereas before, it was a dubious disconnect. I should have been more attentive - apologies.
  • "a breed that "emerged as one of the most successful and enduring." According to who? Also the quote could maybe be paraphrased or repeated in the article body, or moved there. checkY
  • "It wasn't until", "but it wasn't". Contractions are discouraged (done at least three times here).checkY
Discussion

Hey, there FM!! Yes, it has been a while. I was quite pleased to see that you took the review. Quick answer to your dog—-bitch question. It's standard terminology used by breeders and at dog shows. After the dog & bitch classes have been judged, the winners of each division go back in for Winners Dog and Winners Bitch. Oxford defines "dog" as "The male of an animal of the dog family, or of some other mammals such as the otter." I'll get to work on the other issues. Atsme Talk 📧 04:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the citations that weren't needed in the lead, but 2 still remain because they are likely to be challenged. Fn#1 is cited to the same source that is used in the body text, but Fn#3 is from a single source cited only to the lead. It's contains a quote about breed specific legislation that aren't in the sources cited in the body text.
  • The images are properly licensed. They are old images (84 yrs) so they're in the public domain. It's highly probable that the photog has long since died.
  • Yes, they are short so I combined 2 of them, which tightens things up a little. Regarding both temperament and health, we're limited to a generalization of what's expected in that breed. Anything beyond that speaks to individualism.
  • Made a few modifications per William's suggestions. Atsme Talk 📧 14:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being sidetracked, FunkMonk. The article was stable when I made the GAC nom, and I've never had anything like this crop up during a GA review. I responded to what I believed to be valid suggestions from the other 3 editors, and hope they will allow you to continue the review as an uninvolved reviewer making a determination. I invite you to look at their suggestions, and make your own determination as if they were participants in the review. Atsme Talk 📧 23:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that discussion has gone off the rails, I'll leave the issue for last, after I've tried to get an overview of the situation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remain optimistic that you will be able to continue the review uninterrupted. ;-) Atsme Talk 📧 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion seems to have stalled as soon as I commented there, so I guess so, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

In your list of issues above, would you be so kind as to strike the ones that were completed to your satisfaction?

Unless I add a further comment below a point, I'm satisfied with the points you've ticked and answered (striking out is rather uncommon, I see it as superfluous). FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Still seeing multiple links to different photos under source? - I've removed the dupe wikilinks in the image box.
  2. Re:links in lede - had to restore the citations as the material was challenged
I've commented on the talk page, the editor there does not seem to be familiar with GA/FAC. In any case, it is not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Round 3 - reasons
  1. Re:Gallery - added context via gallery title, and hidden captions naming colors, & showing cropped vs uncropped ears
  2. Re:material cited in lede not seen in body - fixed, may not be verbatim
  3. What sets this breed apart from other similar breeds? - see Popularity section
I rather mean physically; it would appear to me that much of the description would also apply to many similar dogs? So what makes it physically distinct from them? FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Any reason why you switch from the full name to the nickname - fixed; use full name when specific to breed registry, club names, and referencing titles, and Staffie when generically describing the dog.
  2. Re: The Kennel Club vs KC - fixed
  • Final round
  1. Ok, I've clarified the James Hinks connection. Pretty sure I fixed all the izes to ises. Re-ordered the sections for fluidity, expanded/clarified where I could without getting too FA-like vs GA-like. As for acronyms vs spelling out, I created sub-sections for KC & AKC in the Recognition section, and added a few more breed associations in the lead of the Recognition section. I've added a checkY in your list above along with a few comments. Atsme Talk 📧 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, you just added one more ize ending in a section header though, " Unrecognized breed"! I wonder if there is anything on physical differences from other breeds? Will get back to the nickname issue later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FM, I never would have recognized it if you had not recognised it. 😂 Re: your question: physical differences from other breeds? Not quite sure what you're reaching for? Nickname issue...I realise your goal is consistency but consider the following: my useage of the nickname vs the formal full name is somewhat equivalent to using uppercase President vs lower case president. I used Staffordshire Bull Terrier when the formal name was appropriate, and Staffie when appropriate to be informal. However, not unlike my use of ize vs ise, there may have been a little slippage which is an early sign of being kennel blind; i.e., my splay-footed, bug-eyed, wire haired dog with the overbite is tomorrow's Westminster Best In Show. ^_^ Atsme Talk 📧 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the physical differences; what sets this one apart from, say, an American Pit Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier? And I'm still unsure why the American Staffordshire has the similar name? As for the talk page discussion, I'll let it play out and read through it so that I can better understand what's going on. Strange how the article is suddenly attracting so many editors... Haven't seen anything like it since I peer reviewed Balfour Declaration, which one might think is a much more contentious article... FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Breeders develop new breeds via outcrosses and line breeding, etc. to improve upon or breed out certain inheritable traits/genetic qualities. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the result of breeders in the US wanting a bigger, heavier dog than the Staffie, so they outcrossed Staffies to larger, big boned dogs (molosser) to develop a new standard and purpose. AST's are heavier and taller than the English Staffies (AST males are 18 to 19 inches at the shoulder vs SBT at 14 to 16 inches). It probably had something to do with gaining advantage in pit fighting back in the day. The appearances of the Staffie vs American Staffie would probably be along the same lines as a Giant Schnauzer vs a Schnauzer vs a Miniature Schnauzer but more subtle. Breed standards would also provide some of the differences. Example, AKC allows both cropped or uncropped ears on AST whereas Staffies must be uncropped. Atsme Talk 📧 18:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I think it warrants a mention then that the American breed is (partially?) descended from the British one, now it reads like they have nothing in common but the name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a not to be confused with at the top of the page. I recently removed mention of that breed in the lede because the American Staffordshire Terrier is arguably the same as the American Pit Bull Terrier with the exception that the APBT is UKC registered and not recognized by AKC, and the AST is recognized by AKC but not UKC. AKC says of the AST: "Whatever the AmStaff’s true genetic composition might be, we are certain that working-class Brits with an interest in blood sports combined the stocky build and punishing jaws of old-style Bulldogs with the innate courage and “gameness” of terriers to create bull-type terrier breeds." AKC eventually recognized AST and SBT as two separate breeds. According to Britannica: "Authorities differ on whether the American Staffordshire Terrier and the pit bull are the same breed. The AKC and the Continental Kennel Club separate them, whereas the United Kennel Club combines both within the American Pit Bull Terrier breed." Staffordshire Bull Terriers were originally developed in England and have maintained their purebred status there and in the US. The ancestral connection (especially in dog years) is too far back and mention of it would only cause confusion. Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this seems like pretty significant info. To me, and probably many other unfamiliar readers, it actually creates far more confusion that the issue of two different breeds with the same name is not addressed. The first thing that comes to mind is "what's the connection", and looking throughout the article to find the answer. If there is a controversy of whether the two are the same or not, that should definitely be mentioned (just like possible synonymies between animal taxa are always discussed in their articles). FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this article for appearances. In looking at the WP article, American Staffordshire Terrier, (which needs updating/fact checking), the commonality is the Bulldog x Terrier ancestry. Trying to connect the two is a bit complicated because timelines vary, much of the information is based on anecdotal reports dating back to the 1880s+/-, and it is difficult to find corroborating accounts. There's also this, but not everything falls quietly into place. Tomorrow's another day. Atsme Talk 📧 03:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The segues weren't easy but I somehow managed to keep the flow. Atsme Talk 📧 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much clearer for me with the added context, thanks. Now, on to the talk page discussion... FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the responses to the points I've made, but since there is currently a lot of editing and discussion going on, I'll wait until it settles, so we can reach a stable version. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, the last standing challenge on the article TP is about the omission of rat-baiting from the history. I may not be holding my mouth right when I type in the words for a Google or Bing search but I've been unable to find any RS that state Staffordshire Bull Terriers were used for rat-baiting. In fact, the closest I came to anything other than bear & bull baiting was a recent article about an isolated incident of illegal badger hunting. I've put in a request for 2 sources that support rat-baiting with Staffordshire Bull Terriers, so I guess now we wait. Atsme Talk 📧 04:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) @Atsme: I'm not sure it's precisely the same thing, but it UK the word more commonly used is (was, I gues) ratting; see [10] for various sources.
Great article though . Our Stella would be proud of you. Well, she'd doubtless prefer sausages, but that's the way of things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SN - so happy to see you here!! You are among my favorite editors when it comes to collaboration, yet we've had too few engagements in that regard. Thank you for pointing to the books, and bringing the term to my attention. Rat-baiting was originally in the lede, then I changed it to "vermin control", and recently it went back to rat-baiting because vermin-control was challenged, then replaced with bull-baiting which appeared to be more prominent. Perhaps it should have said "vermin destruction" per the following source. I added ratting back to the lead, and a note about badger-baiting as a clandestine blood sport in the subsection Early protection. Atsme Talk 📧 17:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Thanks very much, you're very kind. I'm sorry if I was jumping into to controversy with my suggestion: I see on the talk page that you've been mildly trolled over it for a while now. Apologies, but I stopped reading that TLDR sometime ago...! ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, aside from the typical minor IP/newbie drive-by, all is quiet on the western front. Atsme Talk 📧 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll have a look at the latest round of comments on the talk page soon, then I'll see if I can suggest how to progress, if anything is even needed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk - just an FYI, added rat-baiting based on suggestion by Serial Number 54129 - see my comment above. Atsme Talk 📧 17:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, per Cavalryman V31's points on the talk page, I do agree that a lot of space is devoted to Hinks, without it being clear what he has to do with this particular breed. I do think Hinks warrants a mention in the article, though, since the sources about this breed do seem to cover him. I don't think he warrants an entire subheader at least, and the text about him could be cut down (and cut parts moved to articles about the relevant breeds). On a similar note, "of Birmingham, England" is irrelevant to the intro, as it has nothing to do with the subject of this article (more relevant details about this breed are not mentioned, while that is).
  • The line "first arrived in North America in the mid to late 1800s" does not match the mid 1880s date stated in the intro.
  • Cavalryman's issue that the line "The Staffie's early origins as a fighting dog made it difficult to gain recognition as a breed for entry in the KC's breed registry" is unsupported by the refs seems to be unfounded, as the first ref says "Because of its early association with fighting it was, for some time, difficult to get recognition for the breed and it was not until the 1930's that the KC recognised the breed", and the second says "Although offshoots of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier were given recognition by the English Kennel Club as early as the late 1800’s, it was 1935 before this breed received the same honor, primarily due to it’s fighting history.".
  • Ratting should be mentioned in the article body with source, not just the intro. Otherwise the intro seems to reflect the article body, but could perhaps also include a bit on its temperament and health, since the intro is supposed to summarise all important aspects of the article.
  • Still one "ize" left, "AKC would not recognize".
  • I am unsure what Nomopbs's remaining points are, but they are welcome to list them here for evaluation. But intros do not need citations for uncontroversial info, as they are only supposed to summarise the article body, where the citations are located.
Thanks. I'd like to settle all grievances in an orderly fashion on the talk page, point by point, before I close the nomination, so it doesn't disintegrate into an edit war afterwards. Hopefully everyone will be satisfied. This shouldn't be harder to solve than the Balfour Declaration article was. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Just continue whatever you're doing without me. — Nomopbs (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier&oldid=905555890"