Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse's Ghost


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Horse's Ghost

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient notability/coverage in reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus   23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Marcus  Qwertyus   23:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Marcus  Qwertyus   23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - In addition to the source already in the article, there is discussion of this American Indian chief here and here. The photo itself also counts as significant coverage in a reliable source, being a documented part of a historically significant collection of images.  The topic therefore has significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources and should be kept as passing WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The problem with this article is that it is a mere stub. DustFormsWords has identified  two more references to him, which might make it into a short article, rather than a mere stub.  However, we cannot get very far until there is more context to what we have so far.  We appear to have no article on Charles B. Lohmiller, so that the nature of the event in which he, the subject, and "others" (unnamed) were involved is not clear.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Short length is not a reason for deletion. There is no problem with an article being a mere stub; the majority of articles on Wikipedia are stubs. If the article passes WP:N (which, per my sources above, it does) it shouldn't be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Stub articles are fine, and form an important part of the Project.  See, as well, WP:NOEFFORT, where the "stub" argument is cited as an "argument to avoid".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. I'm not entirely convinced that three photographs and their captions are enough to base an encyclopedia article on. On the other hand, the guy would appear to be historically important, and at least one of those captions provides sufficient detail to constitute significant coverage. Obviously the fact that it's a stub shouldn't come in to play. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2011 (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.