Talk:Leavitt Bulldog

Notability

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Is the breed Leavitt Bulldog notable by Wikipedia standards? for a discussion regarding the notability of this very new breed of dogs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Tikuko#Your Leavitt Bulldog decline for a discussion that started on or about December 18, 2013 on the notability of this topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Hello Davidwr and others. I do not know why some are fighting very hard to convince all of you that the Leavitt Bulldog is not a breed on it's own. Please notice that we only started in 2005 and yet we have some notabilities if you ask me. Here are 4 notabilities This is a magazine showing the existing of the Leavitt Bulldog[[1]] It cleary said a five year old Leavitt Bulldog It also stated The A.K.C. doesn’t recognize the Leavitt or the Old English bulldogge as breeds, and the B.C.A. dismisses them as “poor attempts by irresponsible breeders at trying to recreate a bull-baiting dog.” So that’s twice in one magazine from November 22, 2011. And they mention the Leavitt and Olde English Bulldog as if the two are different as they are In the book The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser from Berlin epubli GmbH 2013 written by Marlene Zwettler the Leavitt Bulldog is written [[2]] We were also mentioned in the BBC program pedigree Pedigree Dogs Exposed Three Years On That is being written down on Wikipedia in the exaggeration part. Clearly the BBC thought we were notable [[3]] I even have a link for you were you see the program yourself see from 46min and 23 sec than you see the picture on the screen of the Leavitt Bulldog [[4]] This maybe in German but it’s a newspaper and it also a clear statement of notability by the Main post on may31 in 2013 [[5]] I hope by now this is enough i have showing lots of information and to me they are very clear but yes I'm no Wiki expert. Kind regards Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)With all due respect, I am astonished this article has been accepted at AFC. I can see Freedombulls is passionate about his dogs and is trying very hard and understandably becoming very frustrated; however, at the moment this does not meet the WP:GNG.

Looking at the references currently used:

• Ref #1 is a Primary source - their own breed club;
• Ref #2 - used to support the phrase "The new breed was named in 2005, because Leavitt felt that that his creation Olde English Bulldogge from 1971 was not being preserved as he had intended" - I cannot find anything resembling this in the source (The New York Times);
• Ref #3 - This actually states: "Leavitt decided to change the name of his own line (my emphasis) to Leavitt Bulldogges ..." so it is not a new breed it is a line within a breed;
• Ref #4 - is used to support the phrase: "Descendents of the 1971 breed had become heavier and not all breeders were using the original standards." As this is a link to the IOEBA breed standard, I do not see how it supports this phrase;
• Ref #5 - again this is to the same primary source as Ref #!, their own breed club, which is also given as an external link!

In an attempt to help I have tried to search to see if I could find some acceptable sources:

• News (although I appreciate this is not working properly now) only brings up the breed club;
• Books - brings up the book used as Ref #2 but see above comment;
• Scholar - same book as above;
• JSTOR - nothing.

I have also done various searches on High Beam (subscription required) and found one passing mention in the Palm Beach Daily News dated 3 June 2012. Leavitt is being interviewed about his work with cats. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I hit an edit conflict when trying to save my comment immediately above. Unfortunately the article Freedombulls links to in his comment at #3 above is a Wikipedia article, Pedigree Dogs Exposed - Three Years On which obviously cannot be used as a reference and in turn is almost completely unreferenced itself - including the paragraph alluded to. Also the youtube link he gives to the programme would be a copyright infringement as it is a recording of the BBC TV programme. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK it was not accepted at AfC but was instead pushed through/created out-of-process by Freedombulls. It happens. Nothing against anyone for it. --TKK! bark with me! 16:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "notability" refers to. On Wikipedia, "notability" means that the subject "passes" either the notability test outlined at WP:General notability guidelines or the tests at one of the specific-subject-area guidelines listed in WP:Notability. Since there is no specific guideline for animal breeds, the only guideline that applies is the general one. Also, whether or not this is a recognized breed or whether it has "notabilities" as defined by dog-breed-recognizing organizations isn't particularly relevant. What is relevant is whether the topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In other words, "notabilitie" is not the same as WP:Notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dog breed recognizing groups get brought up frequently because when a breed becomes recognized, it attributes some amount of notability. It's not inherent, so to speak, but I mean that when a breed is recognized there is usually quite a bit published about it. This isn't always true (See Alaskan Husky for example, an unrecognized breed that has been extensively discussed and researched) but 99% of the time it is. When we say 'recognized by only its own breed club' we mean that, since it is an unrecognized dog breed, it needs to jump one more hurdle (getting material published without being a recognized breed) and that this is a rare and difficult thing, not that because it's unrecognized it's not suitable for inclusion. Otherwise we'd have to delete Mongrels or any number of extinct breeds. --TKK! bark with me! 09:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A few comments that I'd like to make as the person working on the AfC review:

• I haven't finished the review yet, there was a technical hitch because a redirect was in the way, so an admin stepped in and prematurely ended the review. I'd be grateful if the flack could be held off for a few more days, say until 1 January.
• This particular breed is an unusual case. In a sense, it is recognized by the UKC, but they are calling it Olde English Bulldogge. However, there are two quite different standards for OEB (I'm still working on details of the differences at the OEB page). Most of us are well aware that the standards for different kennel clubs differ, and that cocker spaniels or siamese cats from different continents look very different. The differences may also not be due to differences in the standards, but rather to different preferences of the judges. My point is that having two different standards and different morphology is not an unheard-of phenomenon.
  • In 1995 the International Old English Bulldogge Association produced a standard that is a very different type of standard from one appropriate to line-bred animals. The idea that they should breed true was discarded, and a sort of compromise standard was developed that suited dogs from several breeders who were using the same name, Old English Bulldogge. That is how dog-breed standards were often developed, it is not a dramatically new approach. If you look around the Web now, you will see people advertising Old English Bulldogge puppies with statements such as that they are first-generation crosses between English and American bulldogs. I'm not entirely sure, but I think they can be registered with the IOEBA.
  • In 2001, a standard that as far as I know is the same as the one used for Leavitt bulldogs gained some official status, and that standard is scheduled to be a UKC standard for Old English Bulldogges as of January 2014.
• At this point, we can only speculate on what the future holds for the two standards, the "international" and the "united". At some point in the future, it might be appropriate for the Leavitt Bulldog page to be a redirect to Old English Bulldogge, or perhaps the UKC will decide to rename their Old English Bulldogges as Leavitt Bulldog. In the meantime, this is a very confusing matter for readers, and my feeling is that by having two pages we could work towards a clear and understandable explanation of this complicated matter. As mentioned, I haven't yet finished work on the review, but I hope that adding a bit more detail will tend to clarify the material.
• As for notability, the Leavitt Bulldog is featured in the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed – Three Years On, which I consider to be important coverage, and there is the New York Times article on a similar topic, and the Zwettler book. There also appears to be coverage in German produced by various kennel clubs, but that's not, I think, necessary to cite here. I consider that this breed passes wikipedia's notability test.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The pictures

Tikuko, do you remember this? Somebody keept removing these pictures, with the motivation "These are not Olde English Bulldogges!" These pictures were removed many times from the Olde English Bulldogge.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Maybe they were more Leavitt Bulldogish style, in general . Hafspajen (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all of them: brown nose, no pigment around the eyes, and docked tail are acceptable to IOEBA but not to LBA. Perhaps the images could be put back on the OEB page or corresponding commons gallery. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, no we can't do that, those images were removed all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Of these 4 images, apparently the first two are Renascence bulldogs, the third (Duke) an IOEBA-ish one, and the 4th I don't know. (learning) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Leavitt Bulldogs

• 
• 
• 
• 

--Freedombulls (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• These are the Leavittish style ones? (Above?) Looks more slender-ish. Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more slender-ish than UKC and than IOEBA. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84, the last dog shown here (RicAli's Duffy) is actually listed in the UKC database and has produced several UKC registered dogs. These are just examples of dogs that are in decent shape, but completely in line with what is registered with the UKC. Also please note the comment added to the discussion below regarding the head differences and the 3 dogs shown. The OEBKC labeled dog was actually produced by a Leavitt Bulldog breeder, though he is now UKC registered.Ss 051 (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not put them into the article? Hafspajen (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference in the heads of the two breeds?

This diagram shows rather differently shaped heads on the two breeds, but can someone explain what it is about the standards that causes this? Are the diagrams accurate? The LB has a forehead that I'd be tempted to describe as domed, but "domed" is a fault according to the standard (sorry, I'm not an expert on canine morphological terminology). The LB standard allows a longer neck. The muzzle is described very differently by IOEBA and the LBA, so I don't know if that translates to a real difference in length. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this help?

• 

Gr Barry--Freedombulls (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, not really. The IOEBA standard says the muzzle must be no more than 3 inches long, and no shorter than 1.5 inches, but without a dog to measure, I don't know how that compares to the 1/3 - 2/3 ratio of the LBA. (Wonderful image, if Alfred Hitchcock were still alive he might use it as publicity for a mystery film. I wonder what the title of the film would be.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I try to show by pictures the differences of the 3 main types.
[[6]]
--Freedombulls (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this link. I hardly find it to be fair. The OEBKC dog shown here (LGK's Pirate Lafitte) was actually produced by a Leavitt Bulldog breeder! The LBA dog is the one I mentioned below as having a non-standard muzzle and head due to having cross-bred blood going back prior to 2005 that was never allowed registration. The LBA and OEBKC dogs both have the appearance of the OEBKC dog shown on the far right.Ss 051 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That clarifies that the OEBKC dogs already look different from the LB dogs, which wasn't clear to me before. Since the IOEBA specifies absolute muzzle length, but allows the dogs to be (infinitely) larger, I guess that could mean that particularly large dogs matching their standard would have proportionately short muzzles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude, but the LBA and OEBKC dogs do not appear different in the majority of cases, in fact many of the dogs currently being bred by the LBA came from the OEBKC within the last couple years. Only when the crossbred bloodlines come into play do the LBA dogs appear to begin to diverge. The white/fawn head shot of the dog in the main article is a good example with the longer, thinner muzzle that comes from Dewinter bloodlines in Europe. Someone needs to decide if this article is describing a new breed based on the OEB but that has had outside blood added to modify it, or if it is a continuation of the same breed under a new name. The LBA website indicates the latter, but portions of this article insinuate the former.Ss 051 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Per update 4/10/14 regarding the "difference" between OEBKC and LBA bulldogs, see quote below with reference to an LBA-maintained website with a direct statement from David Leavitt regarding the breed, first line of last paragraph, about 2/3 of the way down the page:

"The LB and OEB are clearly the same good dog. I hope this high quality will continue. The LBA is using a different Breed name, but are not creating a different breed." - David Leavitt

I hope this settles the issue of why David wished to rename the breed (in which he was only partially succesful). He even refers to both clubs' dogs as "the same good dog. I hope this high quality will continue." Emphasis mine.Ss 051 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

References

History

The general timeline is this. LBA was formed in 2005 in order to change the name and dissociate from the OEB name. This is still stated very clearly on the front of the LBA website. Other reasons have cropped up from time to time and all have been fabrications, including that the dogs had changed. Leavitt was involved with the OEBKC during 2005 and was actually quite happy with the dogs he saw per his comments to those involved. See their standards and look through some of the dogs on the breeders websites. You will find LBA breeders with dogs from existing OEBKC breeders because large portions of the two breeds (particularly in the US) are exactly the same.

OEBKC sumbitted to the UKC in 2006, the LBA in 2007. Both got word in 2008 that they would be accepted as co-parent clubs and Leavitt opted out after learning that both clubs would have equal share in managing the breed and would not operate independently. Via the CDHPR breeds can still add outcross blood to purebred breeds, so that has nothing to do with it. The overall UKC recognition also had nothing to do with forming the LBA, since that obviously came well after it was created in 2005.

The outcrossing of dogs also has nothing to do with changing the breed. It has to do with genetic diversity, and the fact that the LBA's outcross program (detailed on their website) requires dogs to reach 94% purebred blood (4th generation removed from the original crossbreeding) shows that very clearly. The goal is to add new blood while still showing that they match the standard. If the goal was to change the breed then why hasn't the standard changed? Both clubs still call out the exact same height and weight, as well as the majority of other characteristics despite a recent re-wording of the standard that was accepted by UKC. This is because the two clubs jointly updated the standard in 2007/2008 at the request of the UKC.

If people can't get facts straight or show some minimum level of evidence to their assertions please just leave it short and simple, as I have now done. The Leavitt Bulldog isn't a new breed however. It is the same breed recognized by the UKC only under a different name and management, which is why it has been cited back on the Olde English Bulldogge page.Ss 051 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources, Notability & Accuracy

One of the primary, published, sources listed in this article include this. This is only available as an e-book. I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia stating this makes it an unreliable source (technically it is not self-published?), but the publisher is a German company; epubli GmBH. Despite recent controversy here, does this qualify as a "respected publisher" according to Wikipedia? The text regarding the Leavitt Bulldog has some factual errors regarding the time when events actually occured, in additional to some grammatical issues and generally being a bit hard to read - perhaps a result of being translated over from German? It gives a less-than professional appearance however.

I'm curious where the notability issue stands currently as well. Despite some arguments stating that the Leavitt Bulldog is distinctly different from the Olde English Bulldogge, the evidence supporting this seems lacking to me. Perhaps to an outside opinion this is seen differently? Ss 051 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I probably don't count as "uninvolved" - but it looks to me as if this is self published, so would not be a reliable source. The "publisher's" website is quite clearly a vanity press. You could always try asking at the reliable source noticeboard though. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Sources do not have to be available online the General notability guideline say [[7]] This was already in the Leavtitt Bulldog page.
The Leavitt Bulldog is one of several breeds developed in order to overcome the genetic problems. Was written on the Pedigree Dogs Exposed – Three Years On and showed on the BBC TV[[8]]
The New York Times, Magazine wrote about the Leavitt Bulldog. In the article can the Bulldog be saved. [[9]]
There is the book Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier Auteur Marlene Zwettler Publicer epubli, 2013 ISBN 3844239227, 9783844239225 [[10]]
The Leavitt Bulldog is also displaced in a Japanese television program The show is called "Inochi Dramatic." Produced by Tomo Shindo . See a small part I displayed on youtube just to show it exist. [[11]]
In my opinion Sminthopsis84 already established the notability in her original text.
Sources were provided with the CC BY-SA code [[12]] So that is established as well.--Freedombulls (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Historically, most publishers have been vanity presses, the cost borne by the author, a style of publication that is becoming more common once again as professional editors and publishers disappear from the planet. Vanity presses cannot be ruled out as sources in wikipedia, other things being equal. That is not the same as a blog, where the cost is negligible. Yes, the issue of acceptability of that publication has already been carefully considered. This discussion needs to move away from rehashing the notability issue and concentrate on individual elements of the writing to see how good we can make the page. Ss 051 please respond to previous responses on other issues. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm less concerned with notability than accuracy. What are those previous responses on other issues though? So far I believe these two are the main problems with the article:

"The Leavitt Bulldog was developed by breeder David Leavitt, originally named the Olde English Bulldogge, but after the breed standards were developed that breed diverged in appearance from the original bloodlines, which prompted the new name and creation of a separate breeders' association.[3]"

The link doesn't work for beginners, but I believe it is trying to reference the LBA homepage. The only statement on that page similar to the quote above is:

"We now call our dogs Leavitt Bulldogs in an effort to differentiate them from the larger body of unrelated dogs called Olde English Bulldogge today."

The existing statement is too vague and can be interpreted to mean that the breed Leavitt created is what diverged from his original bloodlines, which it has not.

The second issue is the Genetic Background section. This currently lacks any sort of source, and again gives the impression to those researching the breed that it is different from the Olde English Bulldogge. Evidence to the contrary has been presented in the form of a statement attributed to David Leavitt.Ss 051 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84, assuming the notability tag will be left indefinately per the discussion below, where do we stand with the issues pertaining to accuracy? You mentioned responses to my prior comments, but I haven't seen anything along those lines dealing with the two issues I've discussed here. If it is helpful I can begin listing websites of breeders showing there has been no divergence (in any meaningful sense) of the two breeds. I can include examples of dogs that do not currently meet the standard for either, such as the one used up above as an example of the Leavitt Bulldog, but do not want it to sound accusatory.Ss 051 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability again

Notability has been discussed and re-discussed, and some have stated that the issue is of less concern to them than accuracy, but the notability tag remains on the article, so I'd like to propose that we deal with that issue first, and then work on improving the accuracy. Here is my view on why this page should not be deleted, starting with the original reasoning that I used when reviewing the page-creation request.

• The breed has been recommended as an alternative to the bulldog breeds such as English bulldog that have serious genetically based health problems. The recommendation is in a notable film. We would therefore expect people to want to know what a Leavitt Bulldog is, and I believe that wikipedia should offer information to those readers.
• The instructions when reviewing page-creation requests are to give the benefit of any doubt, and accept the page, as I have done.

There are two pages at the centre of the discussion, this one and Olde English Bulldogge. If this page were deleted, I believe that other changes are necessary and would happen given the usual way that things happen in wikipedia. What should those changes be?

• Should "Leavitt bulldog" redirect to Olde English Bulldogge.
  • I think that option is not acceptable because:
    • David Leavitt now rejects that name Olde English Bulldogge because the spelling dates from a period long before the 1820 era that he was aiming for, and because there is great confusion about which dogs are referred to by the Old English Bulldogge name.
    • The Olde English Bulldogge page links to the UKC standard, which is not the same standard that the LBA now uses for Leavitt Bulldogs.
    • Explaining the confusion on the Olde English Bulldogge page would make a very messy page that would be difficult for the reader.
• Should Olde English Bulldogge be deleted as not notable, along with Leavitt Bulldog. I'm inclined to feel that that is a reasonable solution to the current acrimonious situation. However, a breed called Old English Bulldogge is now recognized by the UKC, and that gives it some notability. Apart from the UKC standard, my feeling is that the citations used on the page apply equally well to the Leavitt Bulldog, and none of them establishes greater notability for Olde English Bulldogge than for Leavitt Bulldog. If wikipedia's notability criteria are strictly applied, then I believe that many dog breeds that are recognized by a single kennel club, even a rather large kennel club like the UKC, would be deleted.
• Should Olde English Bulldogge be a disambiguation or list page with three entries, whether the Leavitt Bulldog page remains or not:

• A former name for the Leavitt Bulldog
• A UKC-registered breed based on the Leavitt Bulldog
• Dogs offered by other breeders, some of which are breeds and some are first or later generation crosses between various Bulldog breeds

Such a page would have very little clickable content, and given the way that disambiguation (and to a lesser extent list) pages are treated in wikipedia, I doubt that the page would last for long.

From the above reasoning, I conclude that the best solution is to keep both pages, this one and Olde English Bulldogge. Could we please discuss this with a view to establishing consensus? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the two pages as separate and dispensing with the question of notability. Even if the end-content concludes that the two have not diverged the Leavitt Bulldog will probably be referenced by enough outside sources to lead people here in search of information. While this may not strictly adhere to Wikipedia's definition of notability, it certainly seems to me as a valid "sniff test".

Whether that information is within an article separate from the Olde English Bulldogge or a mention of the re-naming on the OEB page is less important, so long as the two articles contain a somewhat consistent narative. Otherwise those coming for information will only be confused further since most people will be associating the Leavitt Bulldog with the original OEB that Leavitt created.Ss 051 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with keeping the notability template indefinitely:

I am fine improving both articles even of the notability of one or both may be in that grey area between "article would survive AFD, even if as no consensus" and "topic is generally agreed to be a notable topic." In such a case, the notability tag(s) should remain as a reminder to readers that this is a topic of questionable notability and that the notability issue should be re-examined every year or two. If the topic is not in the "grey area" but it is clearly a notable topic, the "notability" template should remain as long as the article does not adequately demonstrate that the topic is notable, and no longer. By the way, in practical terms, these two conditions are indistinguishable except to those who already know the topic is a notable topic. The bottom line: Once a given article demonstrates that the topic "notable enough to not fail at AFD" the notability tag should remain until the article demonstrates that the topic "is clearly notable enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements." For many topics, possibly including these two, the "notability" template is (and IMHO should be) a de facto permanent, er, "indefinite" template - indefinite only until the coverage of the topic increases, it is determined that the coverage that was thought to demonstrate notability is later deemed not to (this happens with "news-driven" topics and topics later discovered to be "PR- or "agenda-driven," especially topics later found to have no lasting historical significance) or Wikipedia's notability standards either get tougher (in which case the article will likely die at AFD) or get looser (in which case the article may be deemed "clearly notable"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I do see a problem with keeping the tag. Because I've wasted considerable time trying to rescue pages about some worthy topic that then get deleted because the first draft was poor (in particular, as soon as a speedy-deletion tag is applied, it seems that there is no hope of rescuing a page), I believe that we are unlikely to get many contributors as long as that tag remains. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree

There are contributors who are here only to destroy what’s ever is possible. They present themselves as nice and involved people but they are only here to make trouble. And this tag provides them a platform here. Even some of the more experienced contributors have different views on this matter. The Leavitt Bulldog is a rising breed and it is has proven before that it has been showed on TV more than ones. It was showed on the Pedigree Dogs Exposed – Three Years On and on the Japanese television program The show is called "Inochi Dramatic." Produced by Tomo Shindo. So to me this breed is more than enough entitled to have his own page whith out a tag on it.--Freedombulls (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The notability has still not been established at the moment so the template will need to remain on the article. I have looked again at the Zwettler ebook and am unconvinced about it's reliability. It's unfortunate no one responded on the RS noticeboard; however, it is now very easy to produce an ebook and this particular one demonstrates a distinct lack of editorial control - just look at the grammar etc. The UKC reference (presently ref #7) does not actually help the notability claim as it clearly indicates the UKC does not recognise the "Leavitt Bulldog" as a separate breed because it will only register them as OEB. Pedigree Dogs Exposed – Three Years On is not a "notable film" it was a spin off documentary that generated very little publicity (a quick look at the very poorly referenced article for it, IMO, confirms that). Even so, the "Leavitt Bulldog" is not the subject of the documentary, it just receives a passing mention. Other refs are mainly primary as they are to the LBA. Far more reliable detailed coverage will need to be included before notability can be established. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine. This discussion has degenerated, as shown by the material that was removed with prejudice by an admin. I've taken the bold step of changing the notability tag into a refimprove tag, in the hope that we can finally move forward on the content rather than wallowing in recrimination and name-calling on this talk page and on personal and noticeboard talk pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the notability template - both myself and Davidwr have requested it remain; I am unsure of what the comment ""removed with prejudice by an Admin" means - please expand? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding ping for Crisco 1492 as the Admin referred to. I note that Freedombulls has just removed the template from the article again. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I did so because i disagree with you and Davidwr. I do strongly feel we past the notability criteria. But unfortunately the whole notability criteria it is all interpretable and from the beginning you somehow seem to be on the dark side so the speak.(no insult BTW) People can put in a source but it does not have to be online any more. I showed exactly that. Again look at my previous post it has Leavitt bulldog in a Japanese television program how much more notable do you require. --Freedombulls (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is an unworkable situation, with the notability tag in place, work cannot continue, and it is beginning to appear that some participants want it to remain for precisely that reason. By "with prejudice", I apparently didn't have hold of the accepted meaning of the phrase in wikipedia, where some are using it only in reference to people, not to material. I meant striking out the material from the talk-page history so that it cannot be accessed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Freedombulls: Sources do not have to be online; however, several reliable sources do have to exist. As I have stated above "Far more reliable detailed coverage will need to be included before notability can be established." SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: As far as I'm aware a notability tag does not prevent editors from working on an article; if anything, it should be seen as an encouragement to provide more evidence to prove notability. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Well there we disagree. I personally refuse to waste my time on such pages or on pages that have deletion tags. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with SagaciousPhil here, I don't see how or why the notability tag prevents anyone from wanting to edit, or how anyone involved with the dicussion could be construed as not wanting that editing to take place based on the tag. I've stated myself that I would be in favor of removing it, though the points brought up in favor are logical. Passing mention in various media obviously (by the interpretations I've heard here) do not constitute notability. If the Leavitt Bulldog had been the focus of the show or article that would be different. Either way, I've tried to redirect the discussion back to actual editing of the article to make it both internally consistent and properly sourced. Why not just go back to that? I think that in time there will likely be additional sources to establish notability, and leaving the tag doesn't seem to imply that deletion is imminent. In fact the timing for further review has been noted to be on the order of years.Ss 051 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84: I understand your frustration. With respect to articles that you agree are non-notable or which you concede are likely to be deleted, I even endorse your decision to not waste time on such pages. However, for pages that are likely notable but which do not adequately demonstrate notability, {{notability}} is a "call to arms" to all interested editors to find such references. For pages like this one where the notability is at least for the time being the subject of legitimate differences of opinion, it does come down to a personal choice of where you are going to invest your limited Wikipedia editing time. If it is your choice to invest your time on other articles at the expense of this one, then I respect your choice and I thank you for your contributions to the project, and I would encourage everyone else to respect your choice as well. I would ask that if you happen to stumble across future reference or references that would firmly establish the notability of this topic, that you consider adding them to the article or at least adding them to this talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the New York Times reliable source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-saved.html?pagewanted=all Sears did some research and eventually reached out to David Leavitt, who began developing the Old English bulldogge breed in 1971. Using a breeding scheme ...

(excessive use of copyrighted material removed)

The bulldog is just not a very healthy dog, and I don’t think that will change if we just keep breeding them with other bulldogs.” . Hafspajen (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Trimmed out WP:COPYVIO. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, why?Ss 051 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: Sorry, your very long quote from the newspaper without any commentary meant that it was a blatant copyright violation. I trimmed out all but the first and last part. Interested editors can follow the link and find the starting and ending points using their web browser's "search" or "find" function. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Eh, it was a citation, not excessive use of copyrighted material. Didn't put that into the article, right? Copyright violation is when you put that into the article. You are allowed to cite sources and discuss them, you know? WP:Citation. If you never read any sources then you are not able to discuss it either. And the temperature on this talk page is a bit too heated. Hafspajen (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hafspajen, were you questioning whether or not the Times is a reliable source that could be used, or did this relate back to notability?Ss 051 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)