Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Rod Charlie

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod Charlie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The horse has not won Grade I events which is the minimum requirement for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing hence failing WP:GNG. (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (originally was for delete but the arguments changed my mind.) I could argue that almost all of the coverage that includes Hot Rod Charlie is related to the races and not the horse in particular. That was why I originally agreed that the article should be deleted. Now I'm leaning the other way, especially given the Beyer assigned to him from the Belmont (107 - higher than American Pharoah) and the praise for him hanging on despite the torrid pace. (Andy Serling called it the best losing effort in New York since Seattle Slew lost to Exceller - praise indeed). So, yeah. Tough call. If consensus was for delete, I'd move it to a sandbox because IMO he's got a Grade I in there if he can just dodge Essential Quality. Second in the BCJuvenile and Belmont, and third/second in the Derby is quite the resume. Reminds me of Gun Runner. Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He won the Louisiana Derby and he was third in the Kentucky Derby and second in the Belmont Stakes which after Medina Spirit is inevitably disqualified will render him the second best sustained track record during the 2021 Thoroughbred triple crown racingbseasin.. This is just wrong another play to prove somebody can delete something which plagues wikipedia.. there is a story here ..He has substantial new coverage and all put together he is more than notable. . ...Strattonsmith (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Louisiana Derby is only a Grade II event and it is the only graded event that Hot Rod Charlie has won. Being placed in a Grade I event is not a criteria for inclusion of an article even though they were Classic events. There are many Grade II winners who do not have articles and there are also far more qualified Grade I winners who do not have article but should. Winning a second tier event is not enough and if it was there would be whole host of article which the project would need to include. Therefore there is a reason why there needs to be a limit for inclusion. I agree with Jlvsclrk that the article be placed in a sandbox awaiting the time until Hot Rod Charlie wins a GI event. Until that time we are not WP:Crystal and the article needs to be deleted. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your disagreement Please try and think about ths in another way, Rhe Kentucky Derby especially the contested 2021 running of it is a major news event and Hot Rod Charlie was a material player in it as well as having led for most of the Race tbe Belmont Stakes and finishing second in that race. yet another large news story. The reason other Grade 1 winners do not have pages is that no one took tbe time to write them. Here it is a cumulative score which renders thus player newsworthy and notable. Honestly the brief for deletion sounds like an interior argument not reflective of the outside world.Strattonsmith (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Delete per your argument: Your choice to disagree, but your argument falls far short of what is WP:N and WP:GNG that is needed for this project. Your projection falls into WP:RECENT which for this moment its on your mind but for the general inclusion at this point in time Hot Rod Charlie falls below what's needed for an article today. Refer to WP:NHORSERACING as to what is considered needed for an article about a horse. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Au Contraire It succeeds on news coverage and involvement in major events (two) above and beyond horse racing criterion.Strattonsmith (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Refer to WP:NOTNP. Guidance for this project was left to those who were interested and although it is amendable I don't see how Hot Rod Charlie can exist unless he wins another GII or a GI. In time that is possible but today we are not there. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You my friend are looking at in the wrong way. And eventually he will do it in the barn (lOl) where he will have a hand in making more Wikipedia pages which someone can say in the future don't exist and perhaps after the creators of those future pages get pissed their subjects too in the end will persist. Meanwhile he exists whether you think so or not. Why delete something which is going go back up inevitably just to prove you can prosecute a case on the thinnest of circumstances, are you running for office?Strattonsmith (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The horse not winning any grade I races has nothing to do with WP:GNG. It is part of the SNG, please see WP:NHORSERACING. General notability is the same for all subjects. Sports-specific guidelines hold these more inclusive guidelines such as the graded stakes and hall of fame criteria. Also, Grade I is not the only way to meet the SNG. Per the SNG, "individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group II/III graded stakes races..." At any rate, I see more than enough to meet WP:GNG, as in significant and reliable coverage, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Any article that meets GNG does not also have to meet SNG criteria; it is there as another way to help articles meet notability. Here are some more sources, not all are newspaper sources: Note: I have updated this list out of necessity. Some sources pulled and some new ones added. Also the list formatting has been fixed.:dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add a few more sources, some about other than the Triple Crown races. Broke track record at Louisiana Derby. Some major news sources added.

03:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)dawnleelynn^(talk)Add source regarding next race strong possibiity.dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

dawnleelynn, in response to your posting "individuals who have won multiple significant Grade/Group II/III graded stakes races...", Hot Rod Charlie has won only one Grade II. Nothing multiple. Sure there are many references but they do nothing to confirm notability only that the horse was beaten in the G1 Belmont Stakes. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Why are you suddenly pinging a user out in this discussion? This is not personal. Anyway, I am referring to the discussions throughout this Articles for Deletion regarding sandboxing the Hot Rod Charlie article until he wins a Grade I race. That is not the only path mentioned in the SNG is what I am specifying. However, I am not saying any path in the SNG applies here. I have already stated that the article meets GNG. There is an almost endless supply of sources for this article. They are (as stated in the GNG) significant coverage, reliable, secondary, independent of the subject, and can be presumed to merit an article for this subject.dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point being Brudder that your missing is that it is above and beyond and not just about grade1 and grade 2 victories it is that he played a significant part in two cross- referentially to society in general events. What if he caused a stampede and there were multiple casualties would then the only thing that mattered be that he only won the Louisiana Derby, and finished second in the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont Stakes or then if he does it in barn as a sire for hire your argument should be retired.Strattonsmith (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)tired[reply]

Keep Classic example of the distinction between GNG and SNG. SNGs are tools to help editors determine notability where GNG is vague or not clear. In this case, we have GNG when you combine all coverage. Yes, only a G II win, which, by itself would probably not meet GNG, but we add to this being third in the Derby (second if they do DQ Medina Spirit, which is likely) and second in the Belmont, each individually not GNG by themselves, either, but combined all together in a drama-prone year and with a extremely colorful ownership group that also got a lot of coverage, I think he’s there. If he was gelded and retired tomorrow, we might reassess, but IMHO if we are looking at a close case, I think it fits. If others disagree, I do agree that it should not be deleted, and could move to draft space while we see what else he does this summer or even next year. But I vote keep. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, we do need other articles on other horses, particularly Kentucky Oaks winners, and I encourage everyone to pitch in. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If something fails WP:NHORSERACING, then we fall back to WP:GNG to establish notability. This horse has received pretty substantial press coverage as a result of being a leading contender in the triple crown races this year, as pointed out by dawnleelyn, and so I think this is a pretty clear pass. Aspening (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2021 (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.