Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great pony famine
- 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even that funny. Creative... but not funny. 0zymandias 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
as an outsider opinion, beleive it or not i've actually heard of this before— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.83.112 (talk • contribs)
Google test = No results. 0zymandias 02:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My history text book, 'enduring vision' gives a one line mention of this. 10:38 PM 31 may 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.83.112 (talk • contribs)
As a history professor at the renowed Harvard University, I would like to acknowledge the relevency of this article to my current classroom teachings. To all of those skeptics out there, the Great Pony Famine did indeed occur, and left a large scar on the global pony population that is still being felt today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.175.110 (talk • contribs)
A "one line mention"? You just proved my point. Please see WP:DP before responding. Oh, and as a history professor at Harvard, wouldn't you already know how to spell 'renowned'? (sorry, couldn't resist) 0zymandias 02:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nonsense/hoax. Not even remotely funny enough to be mentioned in the same sentence as BJAODN (aside from talking about how unworthy it is). Also, 0zymandias's above comment is priceless, but 0zy also missed the anon typing "less" instead of "left". -- Kicking222 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced nonsense and a hoax. Might change my mind if an anonymous person claiming to be a known-again Yale professor vouches for it though . . . ScottW 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment 0zymandias old chap! Have you really got that dull of a life that you google wikipedia articles and comment on them!? I mean really, when was the last time you were intimate with a woman? OH what's that.....never?!?!!?!? what a surprise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.175.110 (talk • contribs)Oh, for god's sake. You could at least be witty. One more ... spell 'relevency', if you please. Colonel Tom 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Appears to be original research. If reliable sources can be found to support this, then re-write and keep. --mtz206 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - King Richard of England? 1843? Hahahahahahahahaha...
Oh, and 'academic' credentials that sound like they were written by Dan Brown. Dearie me. AlexTiefling 12:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Delete absolute nonsense. Nearly Headless Nick 12:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day - Motor (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as a hoax. The pope (1400) and Abraham Lincoln (1860) lived hundreds of years apart. Royalbroil 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete (or BJAODN) as patent nonsense. Vizjim 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, hoax NawlinWiki 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete either WP:BJAODN or WP:DAFT the article. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BALLS and send to WP:DAFT BJAODN is for jokes that are actually funny, IMO. Eluchil404 05:46, 7 June 2006 (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.