Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral Stakes top three finishers

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. without prejudice to recreation by someone willing to actually do content development on the article j⚛e decker ^talk 21:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Stakes top three finishers[edit]

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

4 years without content is enough. we should either add content or delete at this point. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably but give it time to be fixed. Reluctant as I usually am to support a deletion, I have to agree that no content is a problem here, and as it's a Grade III race, it doesn't have the notability that a Grade I would. I say if no one says they will step up and fill out the chart, then, sadly, it probably should go. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my intention was, of course, to draw attention to this article, but technically its without content, so i can AFD it and not be accused of misusing the process. if other editors that work on horse racing want to hold onto it a bit more, thats fine with me. I think we only would need to have 3 listings, for 3 years, to justify it staying. i have no idea how to research this myself.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The significance of the race itself is that it's a Kentucky Derby prep, but these top three finishers lists in general have sometimes created a dramafest at WikiProject horse racing, so my thinking is that, as a courtesy who someone who might care (did anyone ping the lead editor?) we should give it the usual week or whatever the standard time is. I won't fight to keep it, and if no one pops by to support it, I'm OK with deleting an empty list, but I don't think the wiki will suffer to wait a wee bit. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 16 June 2014 (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.