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 CSD#A7, article is about a person as much as a horse with no assertion of notability, no keeps at AfD, earlier declining admin agrees it is speedyable. No prejudice against recreation with sources demonstrating notability. Chillum 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Horner (horse)[edit]

Pulled from ((db-context)) queue. "Jack Horner (horse)" gets exactly 1 ghit; "Jack Horner" isn't a helpful search (it's a Mother Goose character); no ghits for "Singland Stud"; no recents Gnews hits for ["jack horner" horse]. Odds seem high that we're not going to achieve notability. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability asserted. ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been speedied, as it makes no assertion of notability, but while we're here might as well do a plain old delete as nothing can be found in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Them From Space 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see horses at WP:CSD#A7, only people, organizations and web content. You could make a case for a talking horse, but I saw no evidence this one talks. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to support article inclusion. MLauba (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it sad that somebody thinks it's ok to make such a useless article, with no sources, no reason not to think it's made up, and others are supposed to research it, and find sources. A person spends 5 seconds writing one sentence, and now we have to waste the time of multiple people, since it apparently can't be speedied. --Rob (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 Do we really need an AfD on this? While the name of the article is a horse, at least as much of the content is talking about a person, Michael Gleeson, with no assertion of notability. Often people write about themselves then name the article about one of their achievements, it is still about a person, a person who raised a horse. Chillum 19:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea; my only hesitation was that I patrol all the non-image CSD cats except for A7, and I didn't want A7 patrollers to think I was dumping a really annoying article on them for no reason. But I guess you're right. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google news search extended to all dates returns several results (fee required for non-abstract) of c.1925-30 U.S. newspapers. Is it possible it refers to 1926 Grand National Winner Jack Horner owned by Mrs. A.C. Schwartz? (I don't know.) Of course, with the article the length it is, knowing whether it's covering some 'notable'/'legendary' horse from days gone by, or just some current animal who's received little press or interest, is not made easy. :-/–Whitehorse1 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make the same comment. The Grand National winner seems notable. If this isn't the same horse, the article should be rewritten to cover the notable one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied this is not the same horse, but I still say redirect to Jack Horner (racehorse), the notable horse.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to no assertion of notability, but without prejudice; if this is a notable horse, the article can be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 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.