The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Lottatore Brindisino

Lottatore Brindisino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The source cited for the majority of the information in the article is clearly short of WP:RS. The Lottatore Brindisino#Ban section is clearly copied from Gull Terrier#Ban and of the three sources used, only one makes a single mention of the breed [1]. The only other source I could find on these dogs was this which mentions the breed name once in a table. Neither of these sources provide “significant coverage”. Cavalryman ( talk) 03:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 04:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst ( talk) 04:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The main Moloserdogs.com article has no author nor references, so it is not a WP:REPUTABLE source. Nothing in G-Books. The basis for this dog's mention is a 2009 newsletter which states "NYCHA has designated a variety of mixed and full breed dogs..." and then lists them - it is unclear from this list if this dog is considered a full breed or a mixed breed. The later "Bark" article simply repeats what was in the earlier newsletter. It fails notability and there is nothing we can develop an article around. Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC. William Harris (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Agree with nominator. No significant coverage in reliable sources is available. William Avery ( talk) 13:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete, and probably salt too. As Cavalryman says, molosserdogs.com is not a WP:RS or anything like one, and should be deprecated and removed wherever it is used in this project. There's nothing but the usual rubbish on GBooks, nothing on ScienceDirect or in a wide-ranging database search; it isn't even listed on agraria.org, which lists a good number of unrecognised or dubious Italian dog breeds. Two list mentions on Scholar, one of which (already mentioned by Cavalryman) cites our List of dog fighting breeds as its only source for this breed; the second cites this page, which clearly attributes Wikipedia. This illustrates well why this project may aspire to be a repository of the world's knowledge, but must not be allowed to become a repository of the world's blog-sourced nonsense. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 14:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.