Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hancock Blue Magpie


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hancock Blue Magpie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not sure quite what to describe this as other than "unremarkable horse". I'm not aware of any WP policies on animals, but if we take WP:ATHLETE as an example then this horse does not qualify; it's a year old, too young for any racing or sporting competitions, and as a result hasn't won any. Google brings up next to nothing of note, and a decent breeding lineage is not enough, otherwise every foal of a breeding stud would have an article. Ironholds 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is interesting for people researching a bloodline or breeder to be able to find a plethora of horses, not just the ones who've competed in racing and sporting events. Afterall, a yearling is old enough to compete in halter showing. Furthermore, since when did wikipedia limit what information is important or not? Isn't this supposed to be a place of limitless knowledge? Does it not have room for small articles anymore? I personally wouldn't care if every horse with a good pedigree had an article. It would be a useful resource for other horse owners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.236.15 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the most widely misunderstood thing on the site, and should be printed in big letters at the top of every page; Wikipedia is not a limitless collection of information, and has always been selective. Considering your only contributions are to the article in question your opinion that "I personally wouldn't care if every horse with a good pedigree had an article." doesn't hold much weight. There must be hundreds of thousands of horses with "good pedigree's"; you have horses pimped, as it were, for breeding purposes. A rule on Wikipedia is that notability is not conferred; if the first Earl of Arundel is important, we don't have an article on the SECOND Earl of Arundel unless that Earl is also notable for something other than his bloodline. The same can be applied to horses; other than a genetic structure, what makes this horse notable? Ironho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * delete This reads like an advert, and I see no assertion of notability. I find no third party sources on the net. No news reports, books, scholarly papers discuss this individual. I see no basis for a claim to notability. Interesting information does not make for encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ironholds makes very good points above.   Dloh  cierekim  21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable soruces about the subject and would fail WP:BIO if there were such a thing -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.