Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pony Island


 * 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. – Steel 00:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pony Island

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: db-repost. This is not a valid speedy reason as there does not seem to be an AFD or other discussion on this.. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 08:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

note to closing admin - the tags for this were removed by ip editor for period of 4 days - might want to leave it open longer than the five day period for more editors to make views known --Fredrick day 09:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that's not true - read the tag - "Previously PROD-deleted articles are not eligible under this criterion, and Speedily deleted articles are not automatically eligible for this criterion. Check the deletion log for prior deletion rationales." - so no discussion needs to have taken place depending on the context of the previous speedy. Anyway a discussion DID take place with the author, who originally contested the speedy and then when WP:RS was explained to them, they gave up and said they would try and recreate the article at a future time when they could provide sources. So I'll say SPEEDY DELETE. --Fredrick day 09:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence that this web site fits the WP:WEB criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Noticed this on FisherQueen's page. I have no opinion one way or the other, but is Wikipedia a good place to put information about a children's site that children will likely read? I find some of Wikipedia's content unsalient for minors. Please note I'm not doing the whole "let's censor it!" thing but I do wonder about this type of content. Are children being inadvertently drawn here? Perhaps this is an inappropriate place for an academic discussion like this?--Manboobies 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia - we don't remove articles because children might read them. If parents think wikipedia is unsuitable for children, that's their business not ours - it has no bearing on the merits of an article or even deciding if any article should exist.--Fredrick day 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No one has provided any proof that this is notable. — T aggard  ( Complain ) 12:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete! Does not meet notibility criteria, no references, the content looks to be just a hotbed of debate for people that support the site vs. ones that have issues with it. (And I am a loyal member of the site in question!) Victoriam 00:13, 2 June 2007 (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.