Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Appeal (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 redirect to El Gran Senor. There is consensus here that this topic is not independently notable, given the apparent paucity of reliable coverage and the norm that notability is not contagious. If anyone has an issue with redirecting rather than deleting, please feel free to address it on my talkpage. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Appeal (horse)

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

Unsourced and of questionable notability. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Animals ought to be under A7 (one might argue they are). No suggestion of notability, aside from inherited (literally), and notability is not inherited. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are, since July 2009, apparently --- {{db-animal}} (see discussion). cab (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I missed that. Shadowjams (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So did I and Eeekster. But we're here now. So I suggest deletion for not only the above, but compliance with {{db-animal}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment declined speedy, as daughter and mother of notable horses. Would prefer to see how AfD plays out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't mind removing the CSD in this case since the AfD's well underway, yet suggestions of facts that wouldn't satisfy notability themselves are not indications of notability. I agree that preferring the AfD play out is acceptable here because people have already dedicated time to it, and the underlying page isn't advertising/vanity, attack, or a (c) vio. Shadowjams (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the case of pedigreed race or show horses, heredity does contribute to notability -- or so the people in that field of work seem to think, judging by the prices they pay and the extensive records they keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps the pedigree suggests an indication of future notability, and insofar as that's the case for racehorses I modify my previous comment. But I don't see any reliable sources indicating this horse's notability. I think as a threshold issue too, that those sources should at least have some connection to non-racing sources. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Given that she never raced [1] Sex Appeal is less noteable than her sire and foal. As heredity is considered a factor of notability for racehorses and Buckpasser and El Gran Senor have significantly more filled out articles with less references an article of at least stub class could be created for Sex Appeal by someone more more familiar with this subset of the project. With the type of results that google returns it makes finding sources for this article rather trying. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 14:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reasoning behind this keep leans strongly towards indicating that there aren't reliable sources, and that the horse is not notable.

1) The horse has not raced; 2) no one has found a non-database source, let alone a source in a major publication (and the database sources don't even indicate notability); 3) the only hint of notability that anyone's found here is that the horse has notable lineage, of which we have a well regarded essay directly on point that says that's not enough (WP:Inherited). Shadowjams (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OMG That was clearly my worst argued point ever. Redirect to El Gran Senor until something of notability for Sex Appeal (horse) is found. The more i look at this the more i think the article was created for the obvious innuendo. Note to self: stick to topics i am more familiar with. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... not a problem at all. I'm glad we agree, but even if we didn't, not a problem. I try to be direct; occasionally this comes across as abrupt. I hope you didn't take it as such. Shadowjams (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never try to compose an argument on something so word-play-ish when you are about to go to sleep. You'll arise to see that someone has pretty much said "WTF" to your comments, and you will agree. Three days later you will finally find the words to articulate your position. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If notability is not inherited for two-legged subjects, wouldn't that also apply for four-legged subjects? Plus, the horse never raced at all. Warrah (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at the very least make into a redirect to the El Gran Senor article. I agree with Warrah that notability not being inherited also applies to four-legged subjects, especially when she only produced (as far as I can tell) one foal that actually did anything. Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Enough. Jusda fax 22:26, 30 October 2009 (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.