Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not This Time

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not This Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Horse retired after injury before winning anything of much significance. GIII win is generally insufficient to grant notability per WP:NHORSERACING. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single GIII win doesn't give notability although he was only a small margin from becoming a GI winner. Could become a successful sire in the years to come, in which case an article would be justified, but for now it's just a delete for me.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe this is a WP:TOOSOON and the solution might be to userfy the article in the creating editor's userspace. Actually, I'd favor userfication over deletion, as if he does turn out to be a top sire (as was the case for Tapit, also retired early due to injury), then the editor can easily bring the article back to mainspace, and in the meantime, draft space and user space is not a significant draw on the bandwidth of the WP servers. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete agree with Bcp67. He might sire some good winners, but we don't know right now. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I can see that the subject does not technically cut the mustard wrt WP:NHORSERACING, but there is quite a lot of RS in-depth coverage including some from non-specialist publications like USA Today so maybe it could pass on General Notability. I'd be loath to lose this article as it's well-written and clearly organised even if the creator needs to work on her use of refs. Tigerboy1966  07:13, 17 April 2017 (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.