Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clop (erotic fan art)

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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clop (erotic fan art)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. There's nothing else to say. 晚安 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Keep due to bad argument there’s reliable sources, even scholarly research. Please explain in depth why you think they’re inadequate, and why a merger isn’t preferable under WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE. Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a thing and there are WP:RS. Easily meets WP:GNG. Deviancy, disgust, and WP:I don't like it, to name some arguments that were not made by the nominator — butter no parsnips here. WP:Not censored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dronebogus and 13. The article contains plenty of reliable sources showing significant coverage, qualifying it for WP:GNG. Isabelle ^🔔 16:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.dailydot.com/irl/bronies-react-my-little-pony-porn/ talks about the cloppers. The article already has other reliable sources. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/12/what-a-masculinity-conference-taught-me-about-the-state-of-men Dream Focus 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I never thought I’d hear “clopper” used without irony on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination makes no proper argument for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 29 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 per obvious coverage detailed by others. Pamzeis (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 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)
Comment Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.jpg Dronebogus (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]

Full-on delete. It doesn't meet significant coverage. I'm deeply concerned people think this has "scholarly" coverage just because a couple of the cites have DOI numbers. This source for example doesn't even mention ponies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1097184X15613831 JAYFAX (talk) 09:56, 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]
JAYFAX, the coverage is not required to be "scholarly". MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:04, 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_creep^Talk 20:45, 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]
It's not "brony porn" unless you're trying to imply the porn is based on the fans of My Little Pony. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:25, 3 January 2022 (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.