Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pony Club


 * 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) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 01:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Pony Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The obvious point to make here is there is no such thing as the international Pony Club - it looks like each country has its own organization. I was about to propose a merger with The Pony Club but the latter suggests it is about the (original) English organization (I've now added hatnotes). The "Origins" sections of each article are identical. Considering there is no such international umbrella organization it would be more appropriate to create individual articles about each nation's Pony Club (assuming they meet WP:GNG). There's nothing much here to merge, so deletion seems the best option. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Like YMCA or 4-H or Boy Scouts or any of countless other organizations that have branches in multiple nations, the overall group may not have an international dictatorial governing body, but that does not mean that the article should be deleted! People are going to search for "Pony Club", whatever nation they are in, and the overview article contains links to the various nations. Article needs improvement, but not deletion.  Montanabw (talk)  22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per .♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Though the above examples are different because the YMCA is a global organization and the Boy Scouts has the World Organization of the Scout Movement and other international bodies. The Pony Club doesn't have that. The article in question here is not even about the national groups (e.g. a List of national Pony Clubs), it simply describes something that doesn't exist, largely repeating the article of the UK organisation. Sionk (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * YMCA has an international group, but it isn't a dictat. None of these groups' international bodies dictate worldwide policy - any international group is in more of a coordinating role - all of these groups are nationally governed. Likewise, Pony Clubs do have some international coordination, note,  and  as examples. If anything, the US and UK articles could almost be merged into this one!   Montanabw (talk)  05:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources are provided, just the subjects' web sites. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a nonsense reason - Pony Clubs exist workdwide. This is an overview article.  What sourcing would change your mind?   Montanabw (talk)  06:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having independent reliable coverage is the basis of Wikipedia and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So what part of nine million hits do you deem "no reliable sources"?  Montanabw (talk)  19:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You quite evidently have no understanding of WP:GNG. Google hits are not 'reliable independent coverage', but just 'stuff on the internet'. If you look cursorily at the 'hits' most of them are about pony clubs, not the Pony Club. Sionk (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pony clubs" ARE Pony Club affiliates, just like Girl Scouts or whatever. What part of "this is an overview article" do you not get? See YMCA, 4-H, Boy Scouts/Scouting, etc... same thing. Have you read nothing of my argument above? I would appreciate if it you would just withdraw this AfD.   Montanabw (talk)  22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How about [peer-reviewed studies, the full Google search, and so on. Seriously, just admit you are wrong on this and move along.  [[User:Montanabw| Montanabw ]](talk)  22:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you look at most of those 'peer edited' results, they are published by the Pony Club, therefore not independent. I'm still waiting for some significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent, so unlikely to withdraw this AfD. Sionk (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your problem: Let's start with the peer-reviewed journals: , and -(oh my!) this: "Pony Club is one of the leading junior equestrian organisations in the world." And a mention here, a series of books with wide distribution written by a highly respected equestrian author (Susan Harris).  There are also studies sponsored by these organizations, plus a ready field of participants for studies like ,  and this. Yes, the US and UK articles are perhaps a bit stronger, but this is an OVERVIEW article.  I fail to see your concerns.  I really do.  (And spare me your condescension, I have been a WP editor a lot longer than you have...).   Montanabw (talk)  23:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And let's add news coverage: search news,


 * Strong keep: Not sure I understand the "No reliable sources" logical fallacy "delete" vote, but to each their own I suppose. While Other stuff exists is a nice little essay, I'd point out a few other pages: High school football, Girl Guides, College baseball, Car club, along with the ones mentioned above by Montanabw, and many other such non-specific pages which describe a general overview of various clubs and groups on our project, and are indeed encyclopedic material.  While there is room here to improve and expand the article, I don't see that as a reason to delete. — Ched :  ?  15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per an overview article of an International group of clubs and per common sense. Notability is established per each Pony Club. (I grew up with a Pony Club even in my small, not America city as an aside), (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC))


 * Keep Per sources found, now someone just needs to add them to the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.