Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom


 * 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   Snowball keep because magic makes it all complete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lack of notability. The MLP: FiM fandom has not done anything worthy of having a Wiki page. MontyPla (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The 96 sources and references on the page, including links to Wired, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time, and Entertainment Weekly, says otherwise. In fact, much of this content helped the original MLP:FIM article reach good article status before being migrated here. This AfD reeks of unnecessary bias against the subject matter on the part of the editor, and should be thrown out immediately. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cyberlink. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. Not only is this well-sourced and clearly notable, it's no different than say, Trekkies, Batmania, or otakus. Just because the specific fandom for FIM hasn't been around as long doesn't mean that it isn't notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Nominator misunderstands notability policy, clearly. Whether something is "important" is irrelevant, so long as it is the object of multiple instances of published coverage in so-called "reliable sources." This clears the bar handily, per the vast footnotes. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of whether this is important, it's clearly notable. This My Little Pony fandom creeps up pretty much everywhere on the Internet. 96 references, most of which are from reliable sources, shows clear notability. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Ciaran Sinclair (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep if this isn't notable, 99% of WP is in trouble of failing notability as well. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per all. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per all. Why did this even get nominated?DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow keep – The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. For starters, see some of the sources in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:10, 9 June 2012 (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.