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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Stakes[edit]

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

Article includes no indication of subject's notability. KDS4444^Talk 19:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a perfectly decent stub article to me. Plenty of sources available. Lots of room for development obviously, but not the sort of thing that deserved an AFD tag dropped on it an hour after it was created. Tigerboy1966 13:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding has been that the length of time before an article may be considered for an AfD nomination is measured in minutes, not hours, and the article had no reliable, independent sources when I nominated it. It still does not. As an AfD nomination, it still has six more days for someone to add such references to halt the nomination process: AfD is quite generous in this way.KDS4444 ^Talk 17:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "may" and "should". Just seems a bit of a silly waste of time to nominate this when you have two very experienced editors working to bring it up to scratch. Good luck. Tigerboy1966 18:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article seems to have undergone considerable development since it was nominated for deletion. It is not unreasonable to assume that it can and will be further developed. Maybe an ((under construction)) tag might be an idea to hold off any further premature AfD nominations? 86.145.211.233 (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has a number of references now to establish notability. --Bcp67 (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (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.