RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (2nd nomination)

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic (2nd nomination) | Result: Kept[edit]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Previous AfD here


  1. Continued fighting over this page is an embarrassment to this site. Does this really relate to RW:MISSION? No "pseudoscience" or "Anti-science" involved; I've seen very little real "crank" ideas involved, and it doesn't relate to either "authoritarianism" or "fundamentalism". Aren't we better off bashing each other's head in over something that actually matters? Carpetsmoker (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, it's certainly seen some moral panicking, has it not?---Mona- (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    No, that's a persecution complex and your own shitty research on pop culture.—Ryulong (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    What? What on earth would I be being "persecuted" for? And if you deny that moral panics occur, well, that would be as reasonable as your usual offerings.---Mona- (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Bronies have a persecution complex and your there is no "moral panic" over Bronies. It's feminists, LGBT activists, and others pointing out the pervasive toxic nature of this particular fandom.—Ryulong (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Moral panics are not alien to feminists. They've participated in them before. Not the sensible among us, but some have.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    That may be, but that's not the case here.—Ryulong (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    You are among the last people credible on a claim like that. The more you pound the table denying it, the more I'm inclined to suspect it is, indeed, a moral panic.---Mona- (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    So what logical fallacy would you be guilty of for believing something simply because I'm the one telling you it's not the case? Because myself, and plenty of other people across the internet, don't hate Bronies for their sexual proclivities, alleged or otherwise. It's because they're an extremely toxic group of people like every other libertarian/objectivist group borne of 4chan assholes.—Ryulong (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    You consider this community to be "toxic", so your judgement record here is not exactly great. And "libertarian/objectivist group borne of 4chan assholes" is just laughable. You go around accusing other people of "snarl words" and "dog whistles" and here you do exactly the same thing. You're no better. All you've said here borders on hatred, and you've probably hurt your own "cause" (to get this article deleted) more than anyone else. Congratulations. Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh no I've been outed as a bronyphobe. Whatever shall I do? /s
    Just because I'm saying these things doesn't make them false. Multiple people (a lot more from WHtm) have made these conclusions. The Brony community is overwhelmingly associated with the 4channer MRA/libertarian/"baby's first Ayn Rand book" type. And y'all still are toxic.—Ryulong (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    K, Im maybe not mad with you (Ryulong), Put did found video [from one depressed Youtuber point of view] that Bronies are just could be hypocritical of their own subculture and seemly link to MRA's, Just maybe [true]. (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. It really has no place outside of the odd obsession with one episode that was justified for its inclusion last time and a vague association with Internet assholes. The page's existence locally is nothing more than fans of the show who have an odd insistence that it must be included wherever possible even on the barest of justifications like the "oh in this episode it teaches viewers that you should just accept supernatural faith instead of science based reasoning" when it's magical cartoon horses and its odd fandom amongst MRAs and such.—Ryulong (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Love is wise, hatred is foolish. Let go of the hatred. Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Wine is sweet, gin is bitter. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. This article is just a battleground for assertions that belong in other articles. Mostly it just boils sown to snark at a group of people we already have a page on. The only RWish part is where it gets criticised by the usual right wing blonks, which wouldn't normally be enough to justify an article on any other show. The Brony subculture may be weird, but is writing about it missional? I don't see that part. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. I say we get rid of it. It's barely on-mission, and it's become embarrassingly polarizing for such a petty subject. At least the fighting over the Israel-Palestine conflict's coverage made some sense in that regard. Blitz (Complaints Box) 21:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Exactly! That is about something important, this is about some TV show (and one single episode, at that) with an unexpected fanbase. Everyone involved in edit warring about it should get a fucking life. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well maybe put my idea of put some parts like Pornography or "But it's a show for little girls!" section that seems likely successful deleted page could merged to Furry fandom page as "Subgenre section" to be reminder that some bronies are maybe unintenional closeted furries??? (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Does anyone give a flying one if they are or not? and is picking on furries because "eeeuuurgh furries LOLZORS" still a thing anymore? And even if the answer is yes, how does it fit the mission? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well person who sound or try doing same thing nine years later are try picking on flaw section in Brony/MLP:FIM page to ultmately favoring on deleted page because its weird and cant fit "the mission of wiki". (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Could you explain what you're saying in plain English please? BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Not on mission (oh, it endorses magic instead of science? It's a fucking cartoon!) and it's just an extremely unimportant topic. I mean, there really isn't a reason it should be on RationalWiki at all. If you're gonna rip on cloppers or anything, there's already a page on furries.- Shouniaisha (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Put if delete that page with some more words editing, It just only said one word (Name of show itself with was only link to page)... ...Its Wikifur counterpart shows more unintentional simliares bewteen two arent ignore with some few things are try avoided with 'minor' success. (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Delete. Trying to write something bronies won't get upset about is like ramming your head into a brick wall. If we can't be critical about the fandom, it does not deserve to be on rationalwiki, as that makes the article a waste. And in my experience, even the most minor critical assertion is fought over. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 22:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. no really wtf why is this even here |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png This isn't 'Nam. This is exercising. There are rules. 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. My opinion hasn't changed. Not really missional. Vulpius (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. There is no relevance to the mission. Aleksandra96 (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Just horrible trash. Typhoon (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. The key point being that whatever dubious relevance this has to the mission is over-shadowed by a whole bunch of poorly thought out arguments in favour, and in criticism of the fandom. One cartoon episode with a poor epistemoligical message is the extent of the relevance; I can't help but feel many of the keep votes are doing it for reasons other than mission relevance, perhaps because they feel that certain users have been able to push the site around through sheer volume and persistence. This may be true, but goddamn, it doesn't make the article any more missional. Tielec01 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    In fairness alot of the delete votes have poor reasons too... not hating on the keeps. Tielec01 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. FFS. I hate having to line up with that bed-wetting hand-down-the-nappy weeaboo fuckwit Ryulong, but this is just not what we're about. MtDNotorious Sodomite 05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Jesus Effing fuck why is this even a question? rpeh •TCE 22:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Kill it with a razor-edged fedora trilby - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Why the ehck is this article relevant to the wiki. It has some moral panick-related value at best, but in that case we might as well write an article about anything that ever caused moral panic. I demand an article about CatullusWikipedia! JorisEnter (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. Repetitive nomination, was kept towards the end of October. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Was kept, why is this up for nomination again? Why is deleting this few kilobits so important? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    (Comment) Honesty I feel they like guy for was this deleted again are ether Psychologically Anti-Bronies (Like user Blitz) or Super Mentally Anti-Bronies (Like users Kitsunelaine and [very likely] Ryulong) that try make other excuse to deletion this again? (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Excuse you, but I happen to be a member of the MLP fandom. I just happen to agree that this article is barely on-mission, and as of now has become an edit war between bronies and anti-bronies.Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think this is "an edit war between bronies and anti-bronies" at all. I don't give a flying hoot about MLP (I watched two episodes and found it to be profoundly boring, sorry), but I sure as hell don't want this site be hosting some hateful unfair hitpiece (on any topic). I believe this is how almost everyone feels. The battle is between Bronyphobes (Ryulong, Kitsunelaine) and the rest of the site. Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Tell that to everyone else who thinks the article should be deleted, bruh. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 02:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Think this article should be deleted" does not equate to "think that Ryulong and Kitsunelaine are right about MLP". Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    "This battle is between bronyphobes and the rest of the site" - Carpetsmoker, 2015, one day ago - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    You know very well that I was referring to the edit wars and such concerning this article, just as Blitz was, and not the AfD. Go play your word games somewhere else. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    We're on the AFD page. You, uh. You realize that, right? "this battle" is incredibly vague and contains ~*implications*~. also i'm not a bronyphobe, all fandoms are shit, but bronies and their behavior are up there among the worst as a special case of awful. ciao~ - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    but bronies and their behavior are up there among the worst as a special case of awful.- Kitsunelaine [citation needed] --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    here you go bro - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    So basically a Do your own research? That's fucking pathetic, even for you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    "this is blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't a part of the herd and a simple google search is literally all you need" but i guess you can't read between the lines - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 17:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    A Google search link, especially such a ridiculously broad one, is not a goddamn source.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    bruh, no source I add is ever gonna be enough for you because you're a part of the herd. Why should I even try? :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 18:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    "no source I add is ever gonna be enough for you" What omniscient crystal bowl told you that?? --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's deductive reasoning based on your prior behavior towards criticism aimed at bronies. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 18:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Also I didn't know crystal dinnerware was a thing in fortune telling. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 23:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Kitsunelaine, lmgtfy has it's uses, but not when you don't narrow the search to include terms that should yield documentation -- if it exists -- that Bronies are vile freaks baby rapers unsavory, and you did not supply such terms. Merely directing someone to Google results for "Bronies" is just stupid.---Mona- (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Whatever you say. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 18:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, but has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ok WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel for that maybe good theory, If this happen again third time?, If second deletion failed again?, I dont know put some made list of Users with there special template who likely Anti-Brony? Put if this or third attempted successfully deleted, I could just put some of Brony concept aka But it's a show for little girls! section into Furry page as probable "Subgenre" section with completely renamed as Possible "Closeted Furry" fandoms??? (Also found couple links that somewhat proves that Bronies are (Unintentional) semi-independent group of furries: All Bronies Are Diet Furries and ARE BRONIES FURRIES? from their own followers of MLP:FIM). (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    People that crusade against some random sexual preference seem to be trying to validate Haggard's Law. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    What, You sould put into merged section since it got most ironic Haggard's Law thing I did, And first all, That Im majority Bi-romantic Asexual (Im serious, Not trolling) and Two Im having nothing against LGBT subculture at all? (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I thought you were championing keeping it since you called several people out for being anti-Brony. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    But who is it to the end? Why to make the thing? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png By the way, 2 divided into 666 is 333 03:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I very now keep this until if Majority favoring to delete the page. (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. I vote we keep this page. It's already being nominated for a second time! How is this possible? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 22:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I retract what I said earlier. The reason the we're fighting over the MLP page now is because Ryulong, Kitsunelaine, et al. are on their crusade to revise it as a hit piece or delete it. I vote we keep it and have compromise on it, but seeing as this is the second AfD nomination, I am just dumbstruck as to what to do further to stop more shitfests from occurring... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 00:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    [citation needed] Adding sourced criticism of toxic behavior does not a hit piece make, brorse. Also don't double vote.—Ryulong (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    My apologies (forgot I already voted, and thanks for deleting), but you pretty much tried to paint a real broooooaaaaaad stroke of tar on the entire fandom and claim it as a neutral and balanced article. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 00:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't introduced that to the article. The current edit war is over criticising an amateur documentary that is seen as propagandist by multiple reviewers (even though some aren't professionals either). And my stance isn't unfounded.—Ryulong (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I remember that there was one documentary that did try to portray the fandom as that (I think it was the first major one that came out), but the majority just adopt this stance of "Where did these fans come from?" And, while your stance isn't unfounded, per se, that is only one small (yet kind of loud) portion of the fandom. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ah yes, the No true Scotsmaning, aka #NotAllMenBronies. Criticism of the worst of the fandom (because they are a loud group) should be included rather than endlessly fought over as turning the page into a hit piece. Although my attempts at this were stymied because of the original view that I was doing that (because I had done it all as snarkily as possible).—Ryulong (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I never ever excluded them from the fandom. That's no No True Scotsmaning. Although my attempts at this were stymied because of the original view that I was doing that (because I had done it all as snarky as possible). Really? RW:MISSION explicitly says that use of snark should be at a minimum, and you tried to make it as lolzy as possible? How about we move this article into Funspace? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    No I'm saying it's the fans who did that. And I didn't make it "lolzy". I simply took no punches.—Ryulong (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oh not again, Celestiadamnit!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. It's on mission, with all sorts of moral panic stuff surrounding it.---Mona- (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    There's no fucking moral panic, Mona. Someone's school essay posted to DeviantArt isn't proof of a moral panic.—Ryulong (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    There's no fucking moral panic, Mona. Someone's school essay posted to DeviantArt isn't proof of a moral panic.—RyulongDo You Believe That? Wha-how-huh? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 23:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    It was a reference she added to the article to suggest the moral panic was an aspect of backlash against the fans.—Ryulong (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Huh? Could you show me where I added a reference to the article about a "moral panic?" (But I probably will.)---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    sweatie (:—Ryulong (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ah. I guess I did already add that salient point. Good on me!---Mona- (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    But the reference is shit (particularly because if I was chastised for using a wiki you should have been chastised for using deviantart of all places) and the reasoning is shit. It's not a moral panic. It's because a large portion of the fandom has its origins in the misogynistic and racist parts of 4chan and that behavior still lingers.—Ryulong (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    This is the second time I have seen you use that non-word. Are you misspelling "sweaty" or "sweetie."? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Lol, is Ryu trying to say Sweetie Belle? Or sweaty? Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! Look! 07:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Yes—Ryulong (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ryo, there's no basis for rejecting deviantart as a source. That you don't like it is wholly insufficient. The article I used as a source is intelligent and well-reasoned.---Mona- (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Some kid's shitty essay that he put up on DeviantArt because he was tired of being kinkshamed for being a Brony isn't a good reference when Paravant et al. berated me for using blogs written by feminists and other cultural critics.—Ryulong (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Non sequitur. Your issues with Paravant have nothing to do with devianart being a reputable site or with the fact that that article is sociologically sound.---Mona- (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Reputable for what??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Also Ryu, here's a couple of ethnographers discussing the Brony fandom, including the moral panic about them.---Mona- (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    No because DeviantArt is not a reputable site and if I was berated for using someone's essay posted to Tumblr or Wordpress, you should be berated for using someone's school essay posted to dA. And criticism of Bronies for their deleterious behavior on the Internet which isn't focused on whatever fetishes they have is not a moral panic. And the words "moral panic" only appear once in that whole thing and even reading further it doesn't expound on that either.—Ryulong (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ryu, I don't give a shit about your imagined persecution and attempts to create some bizarre parity due to some battle over sources you've had with others. The fact remains that the paper I cite is intelligent and sound, as well as sourced. the second piece is an interview with 2 ethnographers where they explain Bronies from a proper ethnographic perspective and assume a moral panic in the entire approach, as they explicitly say at one point. You are wrong, unreasonable and utterly wrong. But that is usual.---Mona- (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    If I got called out for using sources that weren't up to par then I can call you out for citing a fucking kid's high school class essay that he posted onto deviantArt. And the phrase "moral panic" only shows up once in that entire website you linked and there's no valid answer to the question posed.—Ryulong (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. It is likely a college paper for a social deviance class (a sourced one), and 2. the ethnographers take it as a given that moral panic surrounds the Brony phenomenon. That's a big part of what they explore in that exchange, explicitly saying so to begin the discussion. You just don't like it. Anyhoo, if the article stays I'll add that reference.---Mona- (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. I like ze drifting mission, iiit is güd. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    More seriously, while this page is only loosely related to the RW mission, I don't see that alone as requiring deletion, and I don't see the article as so deeply otherwise problematic as to need it. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Keep per my previous reason. (talk) 01:51, 2 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
  9. Just keep it, There are just ironic kept Captain Planet here even despite is cartoon. (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Maybe that should be ditched, too.—Ryulong (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    So you just hate Cartoons even despite some them have politically left morals with some dark elements that cant fit for small kids demographic, Thus means can fit for adults demographic instead with serious issues in based ether real or fictional. I start finally thinking you (Ryulong and possibly other Anti-bronies) got likely case of beliving in Animated Age Ghetto myth. (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Nice persecution complex there. That and I don't think you get to vote here.—Ryulong (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Wait what? No dude, You just asking you are probably just love denied all you want, Put proof (One source, Until found article like this maybe sound proof my point that are psychologically Ageist) are sound point to there, And instead you write almost sound irrational-like put there in top is try attempted to giving "good" justify to ignored, That almost people in this wiki are rather being unintentionally regressive or ironic ageist by deleting pages like this (Again). (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    I do not think animation is just for children. I just think RationalWiki shouldn't have a page on My Little Pony because it's a vague stretch to say that the one anti-science episode in a fantasy cartoon for little girls that was usurped by adult men justifies its inclusion on RationalWiki, particularly if the rest of the page is used to praise a community known for its toxicity and anti-feminist rhetoric. The same can be said for Captain Planet because it just seems to be poorly written but maybe it just needs some work. Looking through Category:Television programmes shows that there's only one other cartoon on RationalWiki and that's Veggie Tales, but that can stay because it's existence here is to mostly mock Christian fundamentalism (but the page is also kinda crap looking).—Ryulong (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Ok than, Put someday that real Progressive/"Left Libertarian" shows that have real mortal like Legend of Korra, Steven Universe or Gravity Falls for examples sould replace "Bad ones". (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    You need to understand what RW:MISSION is.—Ryulong (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. What's wrong with the last vote? Just keep it ... MarmotHead (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Because it was apparently done fo the sake of inciting a flame war.—Ryulong (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. There is plenty about MLP (good, bad, ugly) that makes it worth keeping. Indeed, the fact that there are some bronies who also use MLP to subscribe MRA nonsense makes it worth keeping. That being said, MLP is certainly not a topic worth all the goddamn edit wars over it. Gooniepunk (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. The amount of energy that's been expended in flame wars over this particular topic is truly amazing. Nevertheless, there are elements of this peculiar culture that are missional. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Keep, just to piss off the people who get annoyed by this... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    So you're going to be one of the poor decision keep votes that Tielec01 mentioned? Nice to know that.—Ryulong (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Pop culture with a hint of sexual morality, and thus as missional as Gamergate or furries. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Which is to say, not missional at all. Wiki would be improved by fucking off those articles too. Tielec01 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't disagree, but a world without those articles is not a world we're ever gonna live in. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    Gamergate's missional because it's a clusterfuck of conservatism and Internet assholatry. Furry fandom doesn't look missional at all though.—Ryulong (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    "Internet assholatry" is not missional, and neither is "conservatism" as such. Interestingly, "it's just Internet assholatry" is pretty much the reason you've stated on why you think this article should be deleted. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    If conservatism isn't missional then you might as well nuke everything about Conservapedia from the website.—Ryulong (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Will you stop fucking whining? You sound like a god-damn petulant 12-year old. Get over yourself. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    So I can't refute people's bullshit arguments?—Ryulong (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    You can do whatever you want. But why you would want to bitch, moan and cry like a child over a bloody cartoon show is beyond me. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Keep per previous reason. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Keep. We dealt with all this as recently as October and it is nuts that the article has been AFD'd again so soon.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Throw in some more focus on the "accepting and tolerating others means accepting and tolerating neo-nazis" nonsense that exists in the fandom. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 04:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, uhh, and... More locks on the article. Maybe appoint some kind of overseer to filter out anything too apologetic or too... Ryulong. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 04:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


  1. I feel leading Maybe merged some of most ideas into Furry fandom page like Pornography and Brony sections as under new name as Mostly likely "Closeted subgenre to Furry fandom" if this attempt successfully deleted (Again). (Almost face palm?) (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    That works too. ClickerClock (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Give it to another wiki[edit]

  1. Someone at SJwiki should put it in Social Justice Wiki instead of here. They already have a page on Bronies. Just copy and paste; ok some editing is needed to ensure it fits the tone of SJwiki but it's still good material that shouldn't be wasted. ClickerClock (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. I say we move the article over to our buddies over at that other site. JorisEnter (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Good joke! Love it. Those hyper conservative nutjobs will hate it. Why will they hate it? It is because... of this. ClickerClock (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


  • AFD-ed less than two months ago already, so too early for a new AFD IMO. But really, I think deleting it and moving the relevant bits to other articles would be better. The MRA-ish sub-segment of the brony subculture is fascinatingly bewildering... Dendlai (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    The previous AfD was tainted as it was in the middle of Ryulong being a gigantic shithead over MLP and putting it up for deletion because he couldn't have his way. Certainly my "keep" vote then was because I didn't want Ryulong terrorizing the wiki into getting his way. I don't know how many other people feel this way, but I think it's worthwhile doing the AfD again. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    "I voted the wrong way last time in order to make a petty point, and would therefore like a do-over." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I suppose that's one way of phrasing it, which is perhaps not entirely unfair. Yet, I suspect more people feel like me (apologies if I'm wrong). Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I see that you moved the existing AFD page & created a new one rather than reviving the existing discussion/vote. What's your basis for doing that? It seems like you're arbitrarily discounting all the comments & votes that were made only just over a week ago & making everyone post their opinions over again if they want their vote to count which they shouldn't have to do. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    My mistake: it was a month & a week ago. Still, I think the smart thing to do would have been to add your vote to the existing AFD & put it back on the AFD page for further comment rather than starting over & making everyone retread their thoughts on the subject. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    It seemed more useful to me to start with a "clean" page as I suspect that a reasonable number of people will vote different. My apologies if I turn out to be wrong, in which case I will owe everyone a beer. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    The thing is, it is on mission. And I don't know that we should go down the road of deleting articles just because they cause controversy.---Mona- (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    If I squint just so, I can perhaps slightly see the vague outlines of missionality. Normally I wouldn't object to articles that are only vaguely on-mission, but when it kicks up a shitfest every month we're better off without it. I don't care a flying hoot about MLP, but I also don't want RW to be hosting pages that call entire fandoms a bunch of demented horsefuckers. So good people, like you and me, have to spend time "protecting" this article from the likes of Ryulong). We both have more important matters to attend to, both on this wiki, and outside it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's not missional. It's Brony puffery about their favorite TV show made to look missional. "This episode teaches girls I mean Bronies to accept non-science based faith" is as much of a fucking stretch as one can get, as can the original wording of several parts that amounted to the usual libertarian/objectivist obsession with "censorship" because a background animation error in joke at the production company turned into a completely different demeaning joke by the fans.—Ryulong (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    @Carpetsmoker: It wasn't Ryulong who started the previous AfD, it was me. Admittedly, I did it in order to stir more shit and see if I could cause a flame war or two in the AfD, so I'd say it was tainted. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Your memes end here! 03:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it and topic-ban everyone who's edited the page from touching it, to stop the shitfits over it. (Yeah yeah, "topic ban" is Wikipedia jargon, sue me.) I don't care that much one way or the other about keeping the page, but I don't like the idea of deleting something just because some people can't discuss it like rational adults. --Ymir (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    But why bother having it at all when it's just barely on mission because of a bunch of fans who tried their best to find something they could talk about and then rage when critics come along?—Ryulong (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Looking at the history, this article wasn't exactly a hotbed of conflict and was stable (no pun intended) for months until two users decided to wage jihad on it, and you'll notice that both of the belligerent parties that caused the fracas to begin with have voted to outright delete it here. Why should the entire article be destroyed rather than taking a more surgical approach such as applying protection to prevent their edit warring from continuing? Razing it to the ground and salting the earth because two people seem to have a vendetta against the subject matter and can't leave it alone seems like overkill to say the least. (Which isn't to say that their complaints are completely without merit (I spent some time earlier today and easily found sources to elaborate on the brony documentary section most of this drama has been about), but behaving like l337 3d17 w4rr10r5 about My Little Pony of all things is certainly not going to win support/gather consensus for changes) As far as I know the series is still ongoing, and I'd rather read the RationalWiki analysis than end up at Horse News or Equestria Daily or similar nonsense. Lightning Dust (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Speaking from my own experience, it can become difficult not to reflexively oppose any edits made by a user who's been a totally unreasonable asshat vis-a-vis an article one is working on. It's often a good rule of thumb to assume they're behaving true to form, but one can make errors and need to be called back by those not so invested in the acrimonious dynamic. One might process the same text differently (but not necessarily) when made by a neutral party. This is just human and best resolved by reining in the asshat(s). But I do agree with your basic point -- to delete because of fighting is to give unreasonable parties a heckler's veto over the site. Not a good idea.---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's using Jihad wrong. A Jihad is a crusade against UNbelievers. Which is me and Ryulong, (and about 7 others right now) in this case. :) - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 03:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • From RW:MISSION:
    5. And nothing else, dammit.
    WalkerWalkerWalkerDo You Believe That? 19:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Trim hard back to missional content, mod-lock forever, slap Ryulong and his little friends with a wet fish. Anyone who gives a shit about this cartoon is a fucking muppet. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 15:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Finally, someone who speaks my language! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    I wholeheartedly agree, although I hope to be forgiven for entertaining a nasty suspicion that yet another shitstorm will break out over the definition of which bits of the current content are "missional"... ScepticWombat (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)