Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equix

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. W.marsh 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equix

Was originally deleted under CSD G11, but the article's creator, Gzuckier sent it to DRV. Someone suggested the article be restored and sent to AfD instead, so here I am. Nishkid64 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Full DRV with links posted by Gzuckier is here; I found this Thoroughbred Times short piece to have a fairly compelling assertion of notability: "...interest in the Lexington-based company that advises several high-profile clients using racing analysis and equine measuring techniques at the country's major bloodstock auctions." Within the field, it seems notable enough, provided that's not just lifted from the company website. Thoroughbred Times seems to have a good pedigree, pardon the pun. -- nae'blis 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless the Thoroughbred Times articles and 1 google news hit are sufficient to make it meet WP:CORP. No assertion of significance in the artcle.
  • 170 Unique google hits
  • Nothing at forbes bit toreent library
  • Google news search gives 1 hitCheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Assuming the Thoroughbred Times is a trade magazine, I really don't think this makes the grade. Please let me know on my talk page if something compelling develops.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the two references are enough to establish notability. Trade magazines are as valid a source of information as daily newspapers, and have the background to cover technical issues more closely. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are conflating verifiability with notability per WP:CORP which this fails. Delete Eusebeus 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that there's not multiple, nontrivial news mentions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I think I am saying something along the lines of you are conflating verifiability with notability. Eusebeus 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if I were, the notability guidelines that govern when a company is notable are met with the subject of this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here's two articles that feature the company:
  • A CALCULATED GAMBLE Waco owner betting on scientific approach to buying racehorses The Dallas Morning News February 3, 1996
  • THOROUGHBRED EVALUATION GETS TECHNICAL Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) May 26, 1992

  I'm not yet sold on its notability, but there are about 25 other articles that mention Equix in relation to horse races, so if we find moore I might go with Keep. ~ trialsanderrors 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Multiple and nontrivial, not really a question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  What else are you seeing that's nontrivial, Jeff? Most of the ones I saw in TT or elsewhere had to do with the founders' breakup, or were mentions of the company buying/selling Horse X or breeding Bloodline Y. Not sure that's enough.... -- nae'blis 15:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I was going off of T&A's research .--badlydrawnjeff talk 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I've been spending waaaay too much time at AnonEMouse's RfA, I'm certain of it - T&who? -- nae'blis 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Me too, apparently, since that was a Freudian typo if I've ever seen it. T&E, trialsanderrors, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Eusebeus. Whispering^Boo! 17:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Figured I might as well add my 2 cents worth. Again, I'm not married to the article, but is there some problem that we are so overburdened with thoroughbred racing articles that we need to start pruning them based on our substantial understanding of that world? Click on Category:Horse racing companies and you get

Pages in category "Horse racing companies"
There are 0 pages in this section of this category.

I guess I'm not so much arguing for this article because I'm so fascinated with it, but because it fills a hole in Wikipedia, even if imperfectly, and I would be more in favor of deleting it if there were something else that filled the hole. The questions of notability via Google hits for WP:CORP are a bit out of place here, this not being a corporation, thereby eliminating all the stock exchange/financial type sites and restricting the notability to the actual horse world, not the business world. (Also, the number of google hits seems to vary every week. Last week it was Results 1 - 100 of about 1,480 for equix horse[1]. User above reports 170 hits. Today I get 602. [2]Gzuckier 16:45, 5 November 2006 (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.