Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Potential


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Miss Potential

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

Little information about it on a google search, the article is a stub, not very notable, outdated information on it, and little known about subject currently. &#124; Remember, Imurmate (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions.  &#124; Remember, Imurmate (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, Miss Potential is renowned in New Zealand racing history as a top level performer who was incredibly consistent, as shown by her record of wins and placings. As well as Group 1 wins in New Zealand she also won a Group 1 race in Australia which is a great accomplishment. User:ToddyOC 15/2/2022
 * Delete for lack of notability. The NZ Herald article looks decent enough as a source, but not the other linked racing page (which appears to have expired anyway).-Markeer 02:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a normal amount of very routine racing "news", but nothing that comes anywhere near significant coverage or in-depth.  Essentially a single event, ie, not being put down after breaking a foot bone, but that is it.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and above comments. 100% agree. Spf121188 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NHORSERACING, having won three Group One races. Paora (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * NSUBJECTs are just a presumption of notability, not proof of notability. They still have to pass GNG and I do not see how this subject does or ever will?  Aoziwe (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow reactions to the sources raised later in the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not have the sourcing to meet GNG. The sports SNGs all explicitly say to actually have an article GNG needs to be met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to pass GNG. Apart from the article in the references, I was able to find , , and  all providing significant coverage. I don't think WP:BLP applies whether she is alive or not (as a horse), so I think WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP also applies here. There would likely be more offline sources as well as she was notable long enough ago I think. A7V2 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur. A search on "The Knowledge Basket", which has New Zealand newspapers of the period, yields 588 results, which suggests more than merely routine race coverage. Here's some extracts from a story titled "She's no Sunline, but mare exceeds potential" in the Waikato Times of 19 September 2005, page 21: "At Hastings, Miss Potential confirmed her place as the best Kiwi mare since Sunline with her third Gr I win, taking Saturday's Stoney Bridge Stakes at Hastings. It was the icing on the cake of an incredible career in which she has overcome adversity, shown unmatched resilience and courage and maintained a blistering turn of foot. ... And like Sunline, Miss Potential deserves to be remembered as a galloping great." So i reiterate my previous Keep vote. Paora (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Changing my !vote to keep.  Based on research by A7V2 and Paora there is NEXIST to satisfy GNG.  Even if only 1% of the 500+ references are good ones there will be enough with the three listed exliclty above to provide in-depth.  The 500+ are behind a paywall, so it would be best if A7V2 and Paora could add some more referenced content to the article.  Aoziwe (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NHORSERACING and GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 10:44, 14 February 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.