Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of winged horses


 * 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. There is no consensus to delete this material. A possible merge or rename can be discussed editorially. Star  Mississippi  02:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

List of winged horses

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The page is a totally unreferenced (for the last 9 or so years) collection of original research that is not put in context. Category:Winged horses sorts what few articles are notable better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists are always more useful than categories, and the rules clearly state you can't destroy one just because you prefer the other. I removed one bad entry, and all the popular culture entries.  Everything remaining on the list has its own article stating its a winged horse, sometimes with pictures of artwork depicting it as such.  You don't need to have a reference on list items when you can click a link to the main article about it to find the information already there.   D r e a m Focus  00:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dream Focus' improvements. I don't mean to downplay them, but they are pretty obvious. I mean, we don't need six entries for My Little Pony instances, do we? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements. The current iteration that only includes notable examples with their own articles is a valid list at this point. The trivial pop culture section definitely needed to be removed for multiple reasons, but without it, the list is fine. Rorshacma (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep Keep and rename to Flying horses or List of flying horses. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC) After the trim the article's current form shows that there are enough notable examples that this list is warranted, both for navigational purposes and as an overview. The lack of references is now a minor issue only, as everything is blue-linked and references can be found in the individual articles, definitely no reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see nobody is reading the actual article and just blindly voting Keep. Several of the current links are incorrect and seem to have been added just to pad the list into the illusion of notability. Devadatta goes to a monk, not a horse - the horse is supposed to be the manifestation of Garuda, but is not bluelinked and very little exists about it on Wikipedia. Flying Horse of Gansu is a statuette, not a specific type of horse. Al Buraq is usually shown with a human face, and it belongs as a hybrid creature. From what I can tell The Ebony Horse does not have wings, or at least they are not mentioned as part of its description or image. That cuts it down to only 6 or so entries that are legitimately described as winged horses. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me to this, I did some checking but obviously failed to look at all of them in detail. Overall thanks for the work of, with whom I pretty much agree. In detail: Devadatta has been unlinked but has been provided with a source supporting that it belongs here; as long as it does not have its own article, I actually think its best place is here based on WP:ATD-M. Al Buraq has been described/depicted as horse-like, so I think it should be included in such a list, too. To my knowledge all winged horses are flying horses, but not all flying horses are winged. So I had the same thought as , let's rename that to List of flying horses, or Flying horses (which already redirects here), to be more inclusive and therefore (given the fact that it is not overcrowded) more helpful in navigation. Then The Ebony Horse and others would fall into this slightly larger definition without discussion. Arguably, the Flying Horse of Gansu could/should then be included too, though not under "Mythology", as has noted, but under "Sculptures" or something like that. Therefore updating my !vote. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Ebony Horse does have wings. Search that article for the word "wings" as I did, and you'll find in various places in the article it mentions different versions of the story that wings were made for the horse to fly with.   D r e a m Focus  14:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All I see are other versions of the story where there are mechanical wings, rather than a horse, used. The artwork depicting the horse shows that it can fly without the use of wings. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One day, the young prince sees a wax horse with wings in the market and the king buys it for him. The prince climbs on the horse and flies to another kingdom, eventually meeting a princess. Most of the stories of it do not have wings on it.  Looking over everything closer, I agree, it shouldn't be on this list, and will now remove it.  It has long been in category:winged horses, so I'll remove it from there as well.   D r e a m Focus  14:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is still a matter of cleanup, though. Six valid entries is still enough that a navigational list makes sense to have. I certainly agree that potentially renaming the list to a title that makes more sense and is a more likely search term would be a good idea, but I still more or less agree with DanFromAnotherPlace's discussion of keeping it as a navigational list below. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added a couple more sources and cn tags to address some of Zxcvbnm's concerns; it's true that it's not good enough to say "everything is bluelinked" if the linked articles don't contain relevant sources. But even if a few more entries have to be removed, there's still enough here to make this a useful list. It could possibly be expanded by renaming to "list of flying horses", to include horses that fly without wings (such as Sleipnir and Hófvarpnir). Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving it to "flying horses" would definitely be a start. But I'm still having issues finding out whether the idea of a "flying horse" is notable enough to merit a list. I have found very little in books linking various flying horses together. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also couldn't find many sources discussing the general concept of flying horses (though I only did a quick search). But "flying horse" or "winged horse" is definitely a plausible search term, and I don't think readers would be well served by being taken to the disambiguation page. WP:LISTN says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." I think we could call this informational. Dan from A.P. (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I very much think the quoted phrase from the guideline applies here. In addition I wanted to mention that "winged horses" are discussed as a group here Horses: History, Myth, Art, pp. 24-26, and, briefly here, The Natural History of Horses (very old). (There's also Magickal Mystical Creatures: Invite Their Powers into Your Life chapter 4, but I am not so sure....) Normal Google books search, there may well be more in further pages. Daranios (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of fictional horses as a section. I am not convinced we need this to be a separate list. We should also discuss the future of the similar Winged unicorn article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:51, 5 March 2022 (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.