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.
Comment The article contains a number of reliable sources, and while I do not have time to analyze them right now, some of the titles suggest that they cover the topic of the article.
Mlb96 (
talk)
12:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Snow keep Per everyone else. The topic seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. Although I must admit I didn't look into it all that much, but there's still enough out there about it to justify the article IMO. --
Adamant1 (
talk)
08:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. References already in the article before nomination show non-trivial interest by multiple independent reliable sources, thus passing GNG without even reaching
WP:BEFORE.
• Gene93k (
talk)
Delete Almost none of the sources have clop art as the specific subject, it is just a collection of incidental, one-off references and do not meet the notability criteria
WP:N. Some of the sources do not mention the word "clop" once, such as the ProQuest paper. Also, the image it includes I do not believe meets the criteria for acceptable fan art in the commons as it is
a realization of a specific character.
JAYFAX (
talk)
20:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I see three sources that have some variation on “sexualization/porn” and “my little pony/brony”, which is the default standard. The article could be renamed if “clop” is too obscure of a term, but sexualization of MLP:FIM characters is notable enough for at minimum a section in a larger article. The copyright status of the pic is irrelevant, and an issue for commons to deal with. An alternative exists anyway:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_Little_Pony_fan_art_-_Copy.jpgDronebogus (
talk)
05:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
The fact that this article could at best be titled as something as lofty as "Sexualization of My Little Pony characters", per the fact that "clop" doesn't meet
WP:COMMONNAME as it's a word that don't commonly enough appear in the sources or used to primarily define subject, exposes the fact this article is not notable.
JAYFAX (
talk)
13:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm not really get of your reasoning, as it wrote on more favoring for a weak deletion, rename, or merged it with either
Yiffing or
Animation porn, as a subsection/variant. Which turns into unnecessary nitpicking to justified for a full-on deletion. Than a actually "full-on" deletion, that you want?
Chad The Goatman (
talk)
02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
You’re still just using nitpicking as a justification for nuking the article when the sourcing is perfectly adequate for at least a section in a larger article.
Dronebogus (
talk)
15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep I think it is important some kind of article that defines the term, that explains these types of images and what they mean. They are so weird. scope_creepTalk20:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep The whole reason to deleting the article, sounds either cringeworthy on it's own nor justified enough of warned for its own deletion nomination page. While the
Fursona page feels incomplete (i.e., lack of more notable articles) and needs to expanded more, as that fandom focus only on anthropomorphic animals for other IP properties (including this incarnation of the show for the My Little Pony franchise).
Chad The Goatman (
talk)
07:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep: Non-existent rationale for deletion, especially considering the nominator doesn't contest why the multiple sources that give
WP:SIGCOV don't give a
WP:GNG pass. That said, per JAYFAX, a rename may be in order. Also, TROUT the nominator for making me vote keep on an article about brony porn.
Curbon7 (
talk)
11:11, 31 December 2021 (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.