Talk:John Lyons (horse trainer)

Oppose deletion. Basically, I have little idea what the previous article said (maybe I even contributed to it, but I don't recall hearing about its proposed deletion in the past). Also, I cannot find a deletion discussion (maybe there was one, but I missed it and can't find one with a search now) This fellow is one of the major players in the natural horsemanship field, and more mainstream and legitimate than some who also have articles on wiki. Apparently the past versions read like an advertisement, and I agree that's a problem. Such is not my goal here, I'm just adding horse trainer biographies of some of the major players in the NH field, and this fellow qualifies as notable. I'm not related to him, I don't work for him, I'm not even in the fan club, but he is right up there with other practitioners we have articles on, such as Ray Hunt or Pat Parelli. Montanabw^(talk) 07:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Guess that crisis has been averted. Keeping comment in case needed later. Montanabw^(talk) 07:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to see all sorted now. I'll keep an eye out too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There are a bunch of these guys who are famous and notable within their field, and then we have problems with a lot of second-stringers who manage to quietly sneak in free advertising. Sometimes hard to tell them apart. But Lyons is mainstream, even if his followers get a little too devoted sometimes. Sort of like fan pages for rock stars, in a way. Or self-help gurus. Kind of similar stuff here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am intrigued by is the relative lack of material on horse breeders and breeding online..I guess they are all doing outdoors stuff rather than typing away at a computer.....01:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's an ongoing problem with the horse articles in general; so much knowledge is still in oral tradition, even today. What gets published, even in the mainstream press, is often not written by experts and not reviewed or edited by experts; yet what gets written by experts is often incoherent (hen it isn't self-published!) because they aren't writers. Quite a disconnect. The horse magazines are probably the best sources for a lot of info, but many of them are not great about putting their material on the web. For example, I would give my eyeteeth if Western Horseman would digitize their old material, which goes well back to the 1940s and 1950s, containing a treasure trove of info, but at present they won't release anything other than more recent back issue articles at seven bucks a pop -- per article, not per issue!  ;-)