Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old German Sheperd Dog

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.

Old German Sheperd Dog

The result was withdrawn ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no such breed of dog (taking into account that the title is spelt incorrectly) and would make an inappropriate redirect (to German Shepherd Dog).

There is no "Old German Shepherd" in that sense that it is a different breed of dog, just in the sense that the breed (like all other dog breeds) has changed over time (see also German_Shepherd_Dog#Modern_breed).

Also the idea that the "Old German Shepherd" had long fur is ludicrous. The original German Shepherd Dog (Horand von Grafrath) had short fur; a double, waterproof coat. The long haired variation of the German Shepherd is only a single-coat and not waterproof (often considered a fault).

That aside; no reliable sources to verify that it can considered a separate breed, factual inaccuracies that contradict the books I have on the breed and there isn't enough that could be said about the "old breed" to warrant its own article (really, they're not that different, just a few genetic defects as the result of poor breeding standards). ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apart from the claimed lack of notability and reliable sources, I don't think the other reasons provided are grounds for deletion. The German Wikipedia has a corresponding article on the subject, and a google search for "Altdeutscher Schäferhund" gives 47,400 results. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, thanks for pointing that out. Deletion may not be appropriate, I may actually be able to rewrite it. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I have been able to gather a reasonable amount of material. I was too hasty in listing this after I misinterpreted the subject of the article. Withdrawn. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 11:15, 6 October 2008 (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.