Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonabell Farm


 * 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) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 22:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonabell Farm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only one of the references which is primarily about this farm is on the web site of the company owning the farm. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The farm has been absorbed by Darley Stud, which may explain the difficulty finding outside third party news on it. However, there are source links to the Daily Racing Form which is an outside, neutral, third-party source that has news about the farm; the Washington Post carried the obituary of the founder of the farm, the stallion roster alone establishes notability.   Montanabw (talk)  23:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow up: I am accumulating the many, many, third party sources here.  I haven't the time to edit this article, and I am a bit irritated that  isn't taking this seriously enough to put out a wee bit of research effort, (though he might be a newbie) but let me also express my complete exasperation with these waste-of-time AfDs that can be resolved with the most cursory of google searches.  Montanabw (talk)  00:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've done the WP:BEFORE for newspaper and books, and I agree. I've also reviewed the requested process before nominating, and recommend it to the nominator.  Articles for_deletion discussion guidelines states, with some sections removed as irrelevant for this AfD,

=== Before nominating: checks and alternatives === Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: . ..
 * B. Carry out these checks: :. . . :2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
 * 3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
 * 4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
 * 5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia. . ..


 * C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
 * 1) If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
 * 2) If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
 * 3) If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as,, , or ; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
 * 4) If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article.  This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
 * D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability:
 * 1) The minimum search expected is a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.
 * 2) If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate.
 * 3) If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include unreferenced, refimprove, third-party, primary sources and one source. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.


 * Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, obviously, you did a poor job, as I found 14 sources and two books.  Montanabw (talk)  03:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources found demonstrate notability. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 19:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Listen I am not familiar with proper formatting with edits and all that on these talk pages Montanabw  but I do not appreciate your passive aggressive tone as I did put in "a wee bit" of research and even created the entire page. If you'd rather be not add content or do any of that I would be glad to do so, but many of the racing pages are lame at best and many more, such as Jonabell, dont even exist even though they should. A little bit is better than having absolutely nothing on these. I understand you take this very seriously as your tone and constant talking down to users has shown but come on now. On my ban-request page someone mentioned that you all need more racing knowledgeable people but if they're gonna be talked down to and treated like children (which, might I add I expected by saying "Well, obviously, you did a poor job" to whoever that was is ridiculously rude and self righteous. xoxo APIndysMissingBall
 * Dude, I'm on your side on this one. You just have only yourself to blame, though, because you've been an obnoxious smartass elsewhere and so people think you are a vandal.   Montanabw (talk)  01:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I agree with Montanabw. There are 27 results when one searches for "Jonabel Farm" on Wikipedia, nearly all mentions being in articles about famous horses that have stood at stud there or been foaled there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the ESPN link that Montanabw provided on the article's talk page sealed the deal for me. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:54, 17 March 2016 (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.