- 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 merged and redirected by creator. Hesperian 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Riding Halter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Conflict of interest, neologism, lack of notability Curtis Clark (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect
to hackamore. After a fairly careful review, it seems that Riding Halter refers to a non-notable commercial product invented by the author of the article. The article states that a Riding Halter is a form of bitless bridle, but the latter article, written by the same author as this one, appears to be a COI fork of hackamore, and the term bitless bridle appears to be the name of a non-notable commercial variant on the hackamore. Hesperian 00:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many types of riding halter on the market to day. I make one of them. There is no mention of my product or POV pushing in the article. The article was completely neutral. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bitless Bridle" is a non-notable commercial product; bitless bridle is a general category, of which hackamore is a sub-category. See Talk:Bitless bridle for a small selection of verified, reliable sources concerning the term. --Una Smith (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you know this subject matter better than me. Hesperian 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Better than 'I'." AeronM (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on whether you read than as a subordinating conjunction preceding a new clause, or as a preposition. Either way, it is rude to correct the grammar of strangers. Hesperian 02:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I offended you. --AeronM (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accepted. On further investigation I'd say you are right about 'I'. Hesperian 01:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Better than 'I'." AeronM (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bitless Bridle" is a non-notable commercial product; bitless bridle is a general category, of which hackamore is a sub-category. See Talk:Bitless bridle for a small selection of verified, reliable sources concerning the term. --Una Smith (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More details:
- As Hesperian states, it is a POV fork.
- The author of the article sells a product called "Riding Halter", which she sells, and for which she has applied for a patent (according to Talk:Bitless bridle).
- Again, for the record: there are many types of riding halter on the market today. My product is called an Aeron Riding Halter. There are many others. My halter has a provisional patent. Several other riding halters also have patents or provisional patents. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search for "Riding Halter" gives 1900 hits (arguing against neologism, perhaps), but the author's page extolling her invention is the first hit, and many of the hits that don't refer to the author's product are for the phrase in context, such as "riding halter horses".
- Although the riding halter may at some point become a notable product, there is no evidence that it has yet reached that stage. In one of the guidelines, I read an example that is almost identical, but I can't seem to find it now.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to Bitless bridle per analysis by Hesperian and Una Smith. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bitless bridle. "Riding Halter" is a non-notable commercial product, one of many. Substantial portions of Hackamore are a POV fork from Bitless bridle and should be merged into Bitless bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with redirect to bitless bridle. However, Hackamore is not a POV fork, it was a wholly independently developed article predating the bitless bridle one. Montanabw(talk) 00:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think the article text suffers from COI/POV material. I think it's mainly a stylistic issue whether this information ends up in riding halter, halter#Horse halters or Bitless bridle#Halters with reins.
- Sure, there aren't any good sources listed establishing notability for "Riding halter", but then again, there are no sources for the halter article, and it's obvious that we should have an article on that. There might be halters used for riding, and there might be books or trade magazine articles that use the term "riding halter" (thus establishing "notability"). However, I think freight elevator is a useful comparison. Someone could probably scrape together enough sources to make a separate article on freight elevators, but it's easier for readers to just have one or two paragraphs about freight elevators in the elevator article. If a freight elevator expert expanded that section substantially, then it might be a good idea to split it off into its own article. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with this. However, unlike freight elevator/elevator, all attempts to add a section called "riding halter" to the bitless bridle article were summarily deleted by fellow editors. I would attempt to get a section added to halter, but I am certain it would spark another edit war. Someone else will have to do it. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, this is additional evidence of it being a POV fork. The current version of Bitless bridle has a section on riding halters, although it does not seem to include AeronM's product.
- Someone else might add these sections, once the kerfuffle settles down.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current version of Bitless bridle does not have a section on riding halters. It has a section called Halter with Reins, although I don't know anyone who would use this terminology or search with that phrase. AeronM (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There had been a link to Riding halter, which redirects back to Bitless bridle. With some trepidation, I've added some material to address the lack.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The current version of Bitless bridle does not have a section on riding halters. It has a section called Halter with Reins, although I don't know anyone who would use this terminology or search with that phrase. AeronM (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with this. However, unlike freight elevator/elevator, all attempts to add a section called "riding halter" to the bitless bridle article were summarily deleted by fellow editors. I would attempt to get a section added to halter, but I am certain it would spark another edit war. Someone else will have to do it. AeronM (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus?
editAre we ready to redirect Riding Halter to Bitless bridle? --Una Smith (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean a dedicated "Riding Halter" section in Bitless Bridle, per the freight elevator example? --AeronM (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. It only means that we agree "Riding Halter", like "riding halter", refers to some form of "bitless bridle". --Una Smith (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with the redirection. I would need to be convinced that all the different devices called riding halters have more in common with each other than they do with other devices not called riding halters in order to support a separate section, but to the extent that we can describe their construction in Bitless bridle, they could be included.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm obviously fine with it. That said, I still think the things are an accident waiting to happen, but I'm just too damn tired to keep fighting over all the issues here. Montanabw(talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your POV and you are welcome to it. --AeronM (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm obviously fine with it. That said, I still think the things are an accident waiting to happen, but I'm just too damn tired to keep fighting over all the issues here. Montanabw(talk) 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with the redirection. I would need to be convinced that all the different devices called riding halters have more in common with each other than they do with other devices not called riding halters in order to support a separate section, but to the extent that we can describe their construction in Bitless bridle, they could be included.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. It only means that we agree "Riding Halter", like "riding halter", refers to some form of "bitless bridle". --Una Smith (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this merits further discussion. If other editors write the article, the issue of COI is moot. Again, I think the overall article is within NPOV guidelines. --AeronM (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aeron, there remain issues of notability and POV forking. As discussed on Bitless bridle, if all the various forms of bitless bridle are to be classified then it should be by construction type, not by name. The name "riding halter" is problematic in that products described as riding halters are not one construction type, but several. Some akin to jaquimas, others akin to cavessons and sidepulls. I am inclined to classify your halter under "jaquima" or (you'll love this!) under "riding halter", a set which would not include cross-unders nor anything having a stabilized noseband. --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if any section of Bitless bridle becomes overly large, it can be split out as a separate article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying, and if the consensus is still to delete, then so be it... but for the record, it's not 'my halter' you are re-classifying.... the page discusses many types of riding halters, and mine isn't even mentioned. It is now so "neutral, " it's to the point of including everyone else's riding halter, except mine! I still don't see anything wrong with the article. But I'm fine with whatever you decide. --AeronM (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if any section of Bitless bridle becomes overly large, it can be split out as a separate article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said my piece, I suggest that we ask the AfD folks to come in with a completely neutral viewpoint and review. The four of us are not real likely to come to a meeting of the minds on this topic, but I will defer to the wisdom of wholly neutral reviewers. Montanabw(talk) 02:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've written all I want to write on this subject.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Bitless bridle as a subheading (per the "freight elevator" example). As a standalone item, riding halters do not appear sufficiently notable or distinct from bitless bridles to justify a separate article. However, their widespread use and range of features make them sufficiently notable to appear as a subheading on the "Bitless bridle" page. This subheading could possibly replace "Halter with reins" which is a term I've never heard anyone use. I can't see much justification for the list of commercial products in the second paragraph - especially as some of the links are to advertising sites. But that's an editiong question to be considered only if/when a merge occurs. Euryalus (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do the honors?
editAeron, all opinions here (comments aside) are to delete/merge into Bitless bridle. As you created the article, would you like to do the honors? Else, we will wait for an admin to come along and close this AfD. See Help:Merging and moving pages. --Una Smith (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is done. --AeronM (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (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.