RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) As it stands, it is a vacuous and pointless article about a children's cartoon. As it stood some time before this, it was a vacuous and pointless hit piece on a fanbase. Neither are particularly relevant to the mission. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ [[image:Star_of_David.png|12px|link=Special:Block/Raysenn]] '' Anonymous user, the truth is... 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was only a vacuous and pointless hit piece on a fanbase for less than 24 hours. For the past 3 years it has been a vacuous and pointless article about a children's cartoon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get the superscript bit addressed to me with your sig? Wassat mean?---Mona- (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a lame little feature that some users persist with Mona. It picks up the user name of whoever is reading it. Just ignore. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) —Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you could give a reason for your vote, that'd be grrrrrreat... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's off mission promotional bullshit for yet another group of Internet assholes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember folks, all bronys are assholes who wanna fuck underage horses while shooting the disabled. All of them. Why are they all terrible people? Because the start of the group came from 4chan, and thus it never, ever, ever moved on and any fans regardless of where they come from became 4channers. Also I ind your deletion argument of "it's off mission!" amusing as you only think so because you got slapped down for bad writing. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Go clop off somewhere else. You're solely upset that I called the fanclub that you belong to a bunch of creeps.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 00:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Go clop yourself for doing that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * first you spend significant amount of time editing the page and defending the edits, and then, when you don't get your way, it should be deleted because it's off mission ... "If I can't have my way, just destroy it so no one can have their way" 82.95.88.48 (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd rather the page be gone entirely than have it exist as some shit piece of praise for a shitty TV show and its god awful fans. Particularly when multiple members of this website treat my distaste for people who fanatically watch a chilren's cartoon as equivalent to actual reactionary bigotry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 00:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's bigotry everywhere, not only among (purported or actual) reactionaries.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is a prime example of where we have over-reached. Apart from one episode with a dubious epistemological message to children, there is nothing here that is missional. Does the show promote pseudo-science? Authoritarianism? Is it part of the media that discusses these topics? I think we are mistaking "things that interest me" for "things that we should have an article on". This article will never be more than a collection of opinions - and will always, no matter how well crafted, reflect poorly on the wiki (barring some new development that I am unaware of). Tielec01 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) As Tielec01 said, its relevance is questionable at best. The world is full of cartoons that are just as qualified for inclusion. Vulpius (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Why was it ever created in the first place? Teletubbies next?  Scream!! (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC) See Jerboa below Scream!! (talk)
 * Why did you vote if you don't know anything about the subject in the first place? What's next, a bullshit vote that tries to handwave all the missional stuff away?
 * Who sayeth that I don't know anything about it? Scream!! (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think we might as well have an article on the Teletubbies if we have an article about this show, then that conclusion does seem plausible. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:47, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Must admit that I didn't know it was so widespread - I thought it was a few North American nutters but a little research shows me they're also over this side o' the pond - MAD! But live & let live, I suppose. Everyone to their own. Scream!! (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) No connection to the RW mission, hand-waving in the lead ("attracted discussion and controversy about other topics that relate to rational and skeptical arguments") notwithstanding. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Keep. It is hardly an especially important article, nor I suspect, can it ever be. But there are missional aspects as is very clear from even a cursory glance the article. Certainly there are not grounds for deletion. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) If we can cover more about how the fandom faces issues due to their like of the show without going towards Ryus extreme while mostly keeping the article about problem issue episodes and also discuss how the show is treating little children (girls, no less) like they are capable of handling subjects more complex than cookies taste good and the sun is fucking yellow, i'd love to see it kept. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If Ryu has to be de-mopped, so be it. I wouldn't oppose it this time if he keeps reverting against clear majority (as shown over time), and you are the majority view, yes?---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Has some missional aspects to it, the current lead section described this fairly well. Carpetsmoker (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Keepity keep. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 3) Caveat: Long as it doesn't devolve into drama often. Flooding the Recent Changes page makes it easier for edits to other articles to be missed. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I used to think this was one of our better articles but, I guess, I'm out of step with the zeitgeist. It's already been butchered beyond belief in the name of RW purity so, my "keep" is half hearted. I guess because it's not about Gamergate or Zionism it has to go. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep it. --Castaigne (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Don't delete. Anypony can see it's missional.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Very leading to Keep it, For who someone (Aka Clueless/Native/Immature/Walking living Sterotypical Bronies cant accepted facts there fanbase is still unintended flaw and semi-irrational (And also thanks to David Genard to undo this deletion insanity).--70.61.121.86 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep. It covers some of the BS over the show and the BS over the fanbase. 23:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) "Radically" keep, People in this site who are acting self-claiming Anti-bronies are almost oblivously closted self hating bronies need to stop this just because it have flaws and STRONGLY HYPOCRITICAL (Being extremely irrationally immature) to cant accepted what they are if they better to Exspelled Ryūlóng (琉竜) and other Self hating bronies out this site for few month and block them from ever touching that page, Just please...--98.27.29.192(talk) 01:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep it. We need articles around here whenever we can get them. I just skimmed through it, and I think it's alright. Addressing cultish/conspiracies, whatever is a good thing, and this, ahem, particular topic fits the bill quite nicely. You need a really good reason to delete something, and this isn't one of those cases. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "cult" as colloquially used is very pejorative. Sociologically the fandom could be a species of cult and also be entirely benign. The core of the substantive dispute seems to be about benign v. malevolent. Documentation is necessary either way, but especially for any sexual deviancy claims---Mona- (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep. The show considered just as itself probably wouldn't support an article.  The cultural phenomena surrounding the show, and the barmy, doctrinaire stuff that's been read into it as a result turn it into something missional.  And fortunately, that's what the article is about. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, keep. Smerdis of Tlön is right that there is a sociological aspect to the whole fandom thing that makes it worthwhile, and Pbfreespace3 is correct that we do need articles around here. Documentation is key, however, and claims of depravity must absolutely be credibly sourced.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) If we could cover more about how the show is treating children like they can actually handle concepts more complex than yellow is the color of the sun and deal with issues like when it supports wooish concepts, i'd be happy with just a small section on the fandom controversy. I have no idea how to write that and so just worked with this version.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm undecided and somewhat apathetic. But if forced to comment I'd say the triviality of the topic combined with dubious missionality, and then adding the shitfest factor, all points to deleting. Having this much sturm und drang over a goddam cartoon show is just not worth it. But I'll watch the arguments pro and con. ---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Though I'm currently leaning towards keep (as argued here and elsewhere by Paravant and CarpetSmoker). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sociologically, it is interesting that young adults have appropriated the cartoon and constructed an audience cult around it.
 * As I say, I'm undecided and have no strong opinion either way.---Mona- (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd like to note the inherent flaw in the show. It's not titled "My Little Goat" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A sage observation indeed, if keep gets up (which it almost certainly will) a section of the article must be devoted to such obvious speciesism. Tielec01 (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerboa

 * 1) Here comes the most inane proposal yet: How about we have a bare to the facts article and link to one "all hail the almighty brony" essay and one "unabashed hit piece" essay written by our trusty Ryu? I know this proposal is stupid, but someone had to make it... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This one actually makes sense. KOM 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) HATE to agree with Avenger but ... Scream!! (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) I completely do not care, unless all warring parties think it's the best idea ever and would end all editing disputes; in which case I am militantly in favor.---Mona- (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't care that the vote is settled. I just had to pet this Jerboa anyways. And besides, Avenger and Mona under the same banner? Peace in our time! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot me!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad old timer! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Alicorn!

 * 1) Alicorn privilege is actually a serious issue in Equestria, or so I've heard. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:44, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)