Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equestria Daily

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 delete. The pre-relist section was plagued by SPAs, and in any event, since the AfD was not properly transcluded, does not represent a fair cross-section of the community, and so is entitled to substantially lesser weight. According more weight to the post-relist discussion, there is a rough consensus to delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Daily

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Equestria Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable fansite. EQ itself is not the main subject of coverage in most of the articles that mention it. They have received exclusive informaiton and promos from the network and show's creators. This means that it should be mentioned within the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic wiki article. It is not enough to establish a new wiki page for the site. Has there been any coverage in the mainstream media of the site itself, instead of a mere reference to it in an article about the show? --Havermayer (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to have a lot of coverage over the internet. It is well-written and talks about its notability well. Jeremjay24 20:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well written article which has lots of coverage on the Internet. SalfEnergy 21:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of good references, this has been covered in newspapers, clearly a notable web site. Bonechamber (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As mentioned, it's received a lot of mainstream coverage and the article is plenty detailed. There's not a whole of reason to get rid of it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this website has become one of the primary sources for show-related news and fan content, and it gets tons of hits a day. Hasbro, The Hub, and creators/artists on the show acknowledge its existence, too, sometimes providing content or interviews to them. dogman15 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep One of the most important resources and aspects of the FiM fandom. Will probably grow more notable as time goes on 124.169.37.241 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)— 124.169.37.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD.

All-ages show: Hipsters love children's programming...‎

National Post - Aug 3, 2011

According to Wired magazine, the Brony website Equestria Daily gets 175000 page views per day.

My Little Pony Corrals Unlikely Fanboys Known as 'Bronies'...

Wired News - Jun 9, 2011

My Little Pony creations have taken off in other areas as well On Equestria Daily a fan blog that on first blush could be mistaken for a fifth grade girl's ...

The Newest Internet Bro Craze: 'My Little Pony' - TIME...

TIME - Jun 10, 2011

So just how many bros are into My Little Pony Well the fan site Equestria Daily run by a man gets roughly 175000 pageviews per day now according to Wired ...

So its clearly notable. Remember, WP:BEFORE Dream Focus 02:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It doesn't belong in the MLP article because of the site's massive fanbase. 71.22.179.214 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)— 71.22.179.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The predominant FIM fansite deserves an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.141.30.7 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — 120.141.30.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep, Definitely a notable article; has been mentioned in several places, as covered above. Will grow with the community and time. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — ReecyBoy42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. See userpage: "Now I basically don't edit anything but MLP-related articles." Neutrality^talk 05:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep EqD has had Intervews with the creators and Sethisto has been interveiwed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRTJR (talk • contribs) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC) DRTJR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has not edited in almost two and a half years before this one.MarnetteD | Talk 02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the nominator has been blocked. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: None of the sources are of any decent quality, and mention the existence of this blog in passing. Yes, there's a fandom out there. But no, this particular website isn't of any import.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Only websites with an impact on the real world should have a separate page, imho. Slightly off-topic (I am not sure where to put this) I seem to notice alot of multiple votes, and the two ips i recognise as proxies, having used both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.162.125 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 96.61.162.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Procedurally relisted (despite apparent forecast of snow) as the AfD was never properly listed on the log page originally. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single piece of in-depth coverage in the article; everything is passing mentions. Whilst the pageviews are impressive, the complete lack of sources actually about the subject means it still fails WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No in depth coverage. One of the citations is from Global Comment, which is user generated. Maybe leave a redirect to the section in the article about the Bronies. AniMate 08:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you two read the Wired Magazine bit? [1] Search for "equestria" to find the parts written about the website. Dream Focus 08:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet notability threshold; passing mentions in various news articles plus a single blog post from Wired magazine are not "significant coverage" that "addresses the subject directly in detail." Neutrality^talk 09:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Non-notable fansite, mentioned as part of a fad (bronyism) which does not qualify as substantial press (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor quality sources. Fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, specifically to the section mentioning this, without prejudice to being converted back to an article when notability is gained. No point in deleting a valid search term when we have relevant content to it. --Taelus (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep main stream recognition, notability, and coverage. Dr. WTF (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment multiple references establish notability, labels such as 'passing mention' are subjective and potentially a means to attempt to minimize. Bonechamber (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as it has been noted in many reliable sources such as CNN and Wired. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage by multiple notable sources independent of EqD. Not to mention it's become one of the primary means through which members of the show's production staff interact with the fanbase, hence the shout-outs in certain TV advertisements and repeatedly granting them exclusives such as interviews and first-look material. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the same rationale as Black Kite and BWilkins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTAVOTE Dr. WTF (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how much better was your vote? "main stream recognition, notability, and coverage". I could slap a WP:ITSNOTABLE onto the end of that. Goodvac (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what my comment has to do with the particular tip I've suggested. If you want to discuss the merits of WP:ITSNOTABLE further, let's talk. Otherwise, if you want to just stick up for your friend or speak more with a vitriolic tone, then I'll have to pass. Dr. WTF (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This site fails the GNG because it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article are all trivial mentions. Not one article focuses on Equestria Daily in detail. Goodvac (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP and DELETE THE NOMINATION According to discussion on WP:ANI, the nominator is a banned user. Banned users are not allowed to edit, and that includes nominations for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to ANI, nominator was a meatpuppet for Grawp in a 4chan raid. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who made the request. It's still a valid deletion discussion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Delete As mentioned above, does not meet the threshold for notability. The news stories discuss the show and the fad, but the fansite is not the primary focus of the stories. That the production uses it to communicate with the fans is irrelevant for wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The website appears in several reliable sources. Admittedly, none of them focus on the blog, but it gets more than a passing mention, making it notable under the general guidelines. ReecyBoy42 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stricken out. This same user has previous voted, on 9.30. Neutrality^talk 19:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. --Nekopan (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Nekopan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This editor has not edited in almost a year before this one.Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 edits in 4 1/2 years. Very impressive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems pretty strange that a My Little Pony fansite can be notable, but there it is. Clay^Clay_Clay 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Number one site for MLP:FiM-related info. Over 50 mil visitors per now - isn`t THIS the proof of notability? Teyandee (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2011 (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.