Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse sales (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horse sales

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Horse sales (second nomination)
Horse sales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was nominated for deletion around a month ago; the conclusion was generally to keep the article pending improvement promised by its author.

However, in the month since then, there's been absolutely no improvement in this article, besides the minor edits I made to remove the most obvious of the advertising content; the original author has disappeared. I'm not competent to write an article on the history or practice of horse trading, and the current article is - at best - a skimpy "how-to" for a new horse buyer. Moreover, if someone wanted to write an article on horse trading, they'd be best off starting from a clean slate, rather than trying to turn this pig's ear into a silk purse. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nomination. (See also Horse trading and its strange redirect. Another candidate for deletion?) Sensiblekid (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment' Horse trading is the British term; logrolling is the American term. (Of course, Americans use it informally as well, but it tends not to have the political connotations.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also with the redirect Horse trading it would help if there was information in the article it was redirecting to about horses. -- Roleplayer (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying that, there is of course Horse fair, which is a notable event in the annual gypsy calendar. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I wouldn't mind keeping it if reduced to a short stub that is encyclopedic in tone and free of original research - as I said in the first AfD, it might be a notable topic, but this version is extremely poor, failing WP:NOT#HOWTO, WP:OR and WP:V.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • On one hand, there's "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". On the other hand, there's "Don't hope the house will build itself". If you can replace this with a reasonable stub, or if you know someone who can, make it happen and I'll close the AfD (as "concerns addressed"). My problem is simply that the fixes promised last time around never happened - and if there's simply nobody willing to fix the article, it's not going to get any better. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I don't think a month is really long enough to make this sort of a deletion argument (per WP:DEADLINE). That being said, I don't see anything worth rescuing from the article in it's current state. Personally, knowing almost nothing about horses, I could've made up the entireity of this article just using educated guesses. WP:OR, recreate with something good if someone ever takes the initiative to compile such a thing. And even then, it should probably start as a section of some parent article and grow from there. -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Having no references for the content at all leads me to believe its all original research. USERFY till its up to standards? Corpx (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2008 (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.