Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minty (My Little Pony)


 * 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   merge to List of My Little Pony characters. v/r - TP 00:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Minty (My Little Pony)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This character is not notable enough to be an independent article.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:V, which requires that the article be based upon "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The contents are currently based on fansites and wikis, and there don't appear to be sources that would allow this article to pass WP:V.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And looking at the article's creation date, it had a long time since 2006 to justify it's existence.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 13:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:V is concerned. I sincerely doubt the New York Times is going to publish an article about a My Little Pony character, but I dug up a few references from google books to show that Minty does in fact exist, contrary to the claims that WP:V is failed. There's also a Tokyopop published comic called "A Very Minty Christmas" with the character appearing on the cover. Hell, there's even a movie by the same name, My Little Pony: A Very Minty Christmas, with reviews by DVD Talk, The Trades, and DVD Verdict . I doubt it'll satisfy WP:V since nothing presented here will likely be allowed, but whatever. There's nothing to establish notability, but the character isn't a made up hoax, either. She's not on the new show! Kill the impure pony! 187! I don't want this article kept since no frikkin pony satisfies WP:GNG enough to have her own derpy article, but at least Merge any relevant info with that List of My Little Pony characters.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 01:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC) '
 * No one said that there was doubt as to Minty's existence. WP:V demands that we base articles on third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Not get some trivial nugget of information from third-party sources, or discover passing mentions in third-party sources, but that we base the article on third-party sources. If the article derives most of its content from sources that are not third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it fails to meet WP:V. In this case, you've managed to source approximately 3 sentences of material related to Minty, and those are to pretty dubious sites. This one is a satire, if you had taken the time to read it. The book would be reliable, but all it provides is the character name.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC) '
 * No one said that there was doubt as to Minty's existence. WP:V demands that we base articles on third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Not get some trivial nugget of information from third-party sources, or discover passing mentions in third-party sources, but that we base the article on third-party sources. If the article derives most of its content from sources that are not third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it fails to meet WP:V. In this case, you've managed to source approximately 3 sentences of material related to Minty, and those are to pretty dubious sites. This one is a satire, if you had taken the time to read it. The book would be reliable, but all it provides is the character name.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Smerge per Vodello. --Malkinann (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, a quick search found many verifiable third sources on the character, who is one of the original My Little Pony characters. I added a source from Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia by Sharon Scott to the article as proof. Mathewignash (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This trival addition hardly crosses the threahold of making the article based on third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone see the irony in a user named Rainbow Dash nominating Minty for deletion? Anyway, this seems an obvious Merge candidate (to List of My Little Pony characters).  Powers T 15:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about sir. You must be mentally challenged or in dire need of having to see a psych.  Rainbow  Dash  !xmcuvg2MH 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Simone (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The fictional pony and toy does not seem to meet the general notability guideline as there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. All that appears with a search engine test are unreliable sources, like fan pages, primary sources or tertiary sources (like Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia), but there is no objective evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources that give analytic or evaluative claims about the pony or the toy. The article itself does not provide evidence of notability for the character as there is nothing related to the reception or significance of the it, only release notes or summary-only descriptions. My Little Pony as a whole may be notable, but notability is not inherited to every single content fork. This particular toy/character seems more like an an unnecessary split that does not have notability as a stand-alone subject. I do no believe that a merge is warranted since the information is barely sourced, that which is referenced falls into what Wikipedia is not and it doesn't add anything of importance to the main article. I also don't think that a redirect is necessary since the disambiguation in the article title makes it an implausible search term. Jfgslo (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2011 (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.