Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic (horse)


 * 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   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Magic (horse)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Uncertain situation about the notability. Multiple sources have been provided to verifiability is not a problem. Pitke (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are non-trivial, and so the subject does meet our notability guidelines. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate, which part does it fulfill? Asking out of curiosity. Pitke (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This one certainly qualifies as non-trivial coverage, and the source certainly meets our guidelines. That was enough for a keeper, although I admit luck was involved here. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I disagree that the sources are non-trivial; these appear to be routine "puff piece" article type coverage. There are many therapy animals out there; why is this one in particular notable? Kansan (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't have articles on every therapy animal that makes lots of people happy. Has this animal appeared as a Breyer horse model, or have any commercial endorsements, or other indicia of actual notability other than its owners' PR machine?  I agree this is a puff piece based on other puff pieces.  What makes this therapy animal any more special than the thousands of other ones in the country?  I mean, the TIME list includes Bucephalus but not Comanche (horse).  By what criteria did they come up with this list?  (Same for the dogs, why one dog but not others?)     Montanabw (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment external links that were removed Pitke (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Green-Buzz 9 Most Heroic Animals of 2010
 * Global Animal Most Heroic Animals
 * Miniature Therapy Horse AARP's Most Heroic Pet In America - Discover Horses
 * WCJB News Tiny Horse Honored
 * The Magic Touch - Suwannee Democrat
 * Newspaper articles and television news stories about Magic
 * National and international press about Magic
 * AARP Heroic Pet
 * Mini Magic Makes Historic List
 * National Honors For Comforting The Ill
 * Wonder
 * Mini Magic
 * AARP The Magazine
 * Equine VIP Talks To Magic
 * Miniature Therapy Horse Most Heroic Pet In America
 * Time Magazine
 * Magic: This Miniature Horse Makes Miracles
 * Therapy Horse Proves She Is Magic
 * Most Heroic Animals
 * Believe in Magic
 * [http://lakecityjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=6255
 * Delete all in all this animal's notability seems to depend on "heroic" or "courageous" qualities, although I fail to see why an (apparent) website padding list using these words and listing animal individuals in no logical order and without explaining their placing on the list should be considered a notable source. Generally, IMO calling animals heroic is unnecessary romanticism and anthropomorphism -- it's sure nice if a dog saves a drowning kid, but it was his instinct and/or conditioning and training, and not really compareable to a human doing the same thing. Pitke (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And most of the above being stories about the original story.  Montanabw (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Pitke. Also, I think that it's quite possible for a 'non-trival' source to include 'trivial' information. MurfleMan (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * keep For subjects where there are no very obvious standard like this one, the GNG is appropriate. The references are fully sufficient to meet it. The basic idea is that we accept what outside sources think notable. If we would like to withdraw the GNG altogether, I wouldn't necessarily be strongly opposed, but it would need a veery wide discussion, and I doubt it would have anything like consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, this could be regarded as a trivial topic, but it most certainly meets WP:GNG and no other guideline is relevant to the topic. The Time piece seems like significant coverage, and there are plenty of local or industry-specific sources listed above that offer significant coverage as a result of that listing. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Close call for WP:GNG. Coverage is somewhat substantial.-- Pink Bull  19:05, 24 May 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.