Deletion of Olde Boston Bulldogge

Comment: to a related real breed, in summary form as a section. Aside from all the issues addressed above, this is a  problem. WP is not for backyard-breeder experiments (especially unscientific "de-extinction" nonsense). To the extent there is any sourcing about this at all outside of  junk, none of it is in-depth, and it's not consistent, treating the subject as an experimental crossbreed, a sub-breed, a breed re-creation (which is not actually genetically possible), a fake breed for marketing to suckers, etc. It's routine to either delete or summarize and merge when a subject cannot be clearly delineated, is dubious as to veracity, of no or uncertain lasting encyclopedic significance as a stand-alone topic, or simply redundant with existing better material. This seems to be all of those at once, and WP doesn't exist for promoting alleged breeds not recognized by any legitimate registry organization anyway. There's a lot of money in dog breeding, thus a lot of incentive to try to use WP for advertising. Not every cluster of domesticated animals or plants someone sticks a name on constitutes a ''breed'' in any sense WP and its readership will care about. &nbsp;—&thinsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT||WP:UGC)

Comment: In my opinion, I do not accept anything printed by newspaper or magazine journalists as reliable. These either have no expertise on the subject or they can misinterpret what an expert has told them because they do not understand the basics of the subject. Regarding the two books, Gingold is a freelance writer, has no expertise in the subject, and the text quoted appears to be promoting a farm that breeds this dog for sale by marketing it as being special. However, Harris appears to be an expert, the book has 4 editors to maintain its quality, and of interest it refers to https://ioeba.net/ IOEBA. The subject currently has one potential reliable source; it is up to editors to decide if this source meets the "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" criterion. If it is decided that this book does meet this criteria, then all that we have established is that this cross-breed exists; there still remains the issue of  material that could be used to create an encyclopedic article, as we do not have 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE||WP:SIGCOV)