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The result was withdrawn and kept--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling (horse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined CSD. Not sure about this one, appears to be a real horse from the 1870s, although the article doesn't give any dates. Some RS coverage [1][2]. SpinningSpark 23:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lear's Princess and Lady Sterling (horse) are similar articles created by the same author, also CSD'd which should maybe be restored if this one is kept. SpinningSpark 23:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Absolutely zero notability for this horse. Safiel (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User Random Effort has posted in their sandbox what appears to be a keep rationale:

Hello,my name is Random Effort,literally.My first name is Random and my last, Effort. I have been creating articles that nobody cares to make,usually about horses. I firmly believe that those horses deserve just as much recognition as the famous horses. What would have happened if Bold Ruler hadn't been around to be the sire of Secretariat? There would be no Secretariat.I will change my articles if you tell me what is needed to be changed.I SWEAR TO IT.-Random Effort.

The point being made here I think is that the notability of horses used for stud largely revolves around the achievements of the offspring they produce. This is not really a case of WP:INHERIT. I am not saying this horse is notable, just that it needs looking at a bit more carefully. SpinningSpark 11:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reject and userfy until it can be Wikified, referenced, etc, and at least looks like a proper encyclopaedic article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment I would persist in my delete viewpoint. In addition to the lack of notability, we would be opening up a Pandora's Box for a veritable flood of articles amounting to a "Horse Registry." The sire or dam or both of a truly notable horse can be mentioned at the article of the notable horse. But I don't think that a horse that was clearly not notable for its own performance should be granted an article. Safiel (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - As an actual racing horse, there does not appear to be much of a claim of notability. And although WP:NOTINHERITED should be considered, I would say that a horse could be notable as a stud if the coverage exists to substantiate that versus inferring it from the results of the breeding. Gvien that this horse predates the internet age by more than a century, it's fair to assume that sources available online will be rather rare.[3], and [4] provide coverage of Sterling's use for breeding. I also note that the article hews very closely in structure to [5], and the author should be aware of potential issues of WP:PLAGIARISM. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment C19th newspapers are available online via the British Library, and also The Times is available from 1785-2006. Both of these are subscription services but should be available free to holders of UK library cards. Userfication would allow time to thoroughly research these sources. Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Userfication hides an article from the view of other editors a defeats the purpose of collaborative editting. Addition of references would be better served with marking the article for additional sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I looked in The Times archive and got a number of hits in the racing columns, but nothing much more signifacant than what we already have. But it is hard to find useful search terms without being overly restrictive with a name like Sterling. If only they had called the horse Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel it would make this so much easier. However, the obituary of Young Robertson Graham, founder of the Yardley Stud, thinks the horse is notable enough to include in the obituary "Oxford and Sterling were the stud's most celbrated sires." Note that the Yardley stud appears in two of our articles, Isonomy (horse) and Paradox (horse) and Sterling is mentioned in the latter as the sire of Paradox. SpinningSpark 01:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Not enough information there to even evaluate the horse's significance. It needs the horse's birth and death dates, or the date of the 2,000 Guineas race. Links to articles about the other horses mentioned would be useful. The article is fixable with more information, but lack of notability is probably a dealbreaker. Sorry, Random, but I appreciate what you're trying to do. Listmeister (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep on condition the article is incredibly improved. The article is horrible. This is a good ref. I've asked Tigerboy1966 for input. Tiger only does horse article, including English horses from Sterling's time period. Maybe Tiger could help Random out on how to write a horse article. An example would be Lord Lyon, who won the Craven Stakes a few years before Sterling. I thought it interesting that the Craven Stakes has been held since 1771. Bgwhite (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep certainly viable. I have added an infobox and will get onto the improvements later today. Tigerboy1966  09:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination and keep on the basis of the source found by Bgwhite. That together with the what we have already found plus a knowledgable editor now working on it is enough for me. SpinningSpark 09:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.