Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equestria Daily (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The only thing that is certain here is that the delete button will not be hit. Therefore this will be a "keep" close in the sense that the content will be kept. However, there is no consensus on the issue of merging. That will need to be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria Daily

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
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)

Relisting per DRV. I abstain. v/r - TP 13:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per same rationale as last nomination. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 14:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced, notable and the site currently has over 55 million pageviews. SalfEnergy 14:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep in mind that while we wouldn't have an article on Shaun S./Sethiso himself (making one blog = BLP1E), he as the operator of EQD has been getting some coverage as well. As long as its understood that this article covers the website *and* Shaun's participating in creating it (including his interest in the show itself), the notability is clearly established in good sources. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on whether this is to be kept or not, but do not delete, if this content is seen as not notable, redirect it to Friendship_Is_Magic#Internet_following as we hold relevant information there. Deleting this and leaving a redlink would be silly when there is a perfectly valid redirect target. --Taelus (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teyandee (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to be a well known site making it a signifigant topic, the artical is very well cited and appears to meet Start-Class in legnth. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because this site is doing nothing but growing, and awareness of it is increasing. Additionally, I agree with all that has been said on this page so far. dogman15 (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is strong evidence of notability with multiple citations with significant coverage. Dr. WTF (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been covered by other sites and has become notable on the internet.  Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 20:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argued for a relist at the DRV because of the banned nominator and the spas that !voted led to a tainted discussion. In this untainted discussion my !vote is certainly redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. I want to say that I very strongly disagree with claims made above. This is not a "significant topic". It is a fan-site for My Little Pony. This is not "very well-cited". It is in fact sourced to the site itself, to its Alexa Ranking and its Domain Tools, and to a couple of passing mentions in proper mainstream media. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever of in-depth coverage in independent third-party reliable sources cited in the article, and as far as I can tell from my own searches, this is because there is no such coverage to be found. No matter how many opinion statements we see from interested editors who wish to press for a "keep" outcome, evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources is not optional. The only thing that stops this from being a clear "delete" is the fact that there really is a suitable redirect target. When there is an alternative to deletion we must use it, hence my "redirect".—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this, and regarding Dream Focus's comment, it's not only that Time and the National Post quoted the Wired article, but also that it decided to quote specifically parts about Equestria Daily. Regardless, the Wired and New York Observer articles clearly reference the site more than just "trivial mentions", as some in the last AfD claimed. Also, the primary sources reveal that the site has gotten a lot of attention from companies and people involved with the show, which also shows some evidence of notability. ClayClayClay 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep  WP:Speedy keep reason #1, nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a unique case in that it a reposting of the AFD given the discussion from DRV; doesn't fall into SK. (That said, this may be becoming a snow keep, but that's probably too early to tell...) --MASEM (t) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree that this is a unique case, I see it as part of a pattern of AfD nominations being bureaucratically imposed by administrators, in this case with the effect of unnecessarily continuing a tainted AfD process.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.
    • An example of this includes posting a nomination in response to a proposed deletion but advocating a keep position. (If you dispute the deletion of a prod-ed article, just remove the prod-tag, sometimes nobody will want to pursue deletion of the article via AFD anyway.)
    • Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature (most commonly due to a "relist" result from deletion review), then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep.
        • So even now, with more than 20 participants, it would be procedurally correct to speedy close this AfD.  The DRV could have been closed as overturn to no consensus NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination) and brought closure to the tainted process.  The only purpose I can see for the closure as it was done was to prevent the possibility that no one would be willing to renominate the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. WP:N states that notability occurs when a topic receives significant coverage from third-party sources. I wouldn't consider a few passing mentions in newspaper articles that are about the internet following, not this website in particular, to constitute significant coverage. Though of course, that is only my opinion. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Alexa rankings, Whois, citations to the website itself, a citation to global comment (a user generated website making it as reliable as using Wikipedia as a source), and passing mentions in publications... where is the in depth coverage. It isn't there. This isn't independently notable and because there aren't any sources we cannot have an article on it. Redirect this to the brony section in the My Little Pony article. Let's not revisit this until some more articles have been written, okay bronies. AniMate 07:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple mentions in reliable sources, significant traffic, regardless of what you think of MLP fanbase this is a notable website.  Grue  08:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Sorry folks, the coverage is really thin and we have a good merge target. The Wired coverage is the best (and only a couple of paragraphs), the other is pretty much in passing. It's really close, but I don't think it meets WP:N. The idea of "Bronies" might though, and that would be even a better merge target. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a comment on that, the problem is that spinning of the brony fandom to its own article (notable in itself, no question), leaves the show's page lacking, since the notability of the show is directly tied to this fandom. (This is not to say that EQD couldn't be merged if that's a solution). --MASEM (t) 13:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, Masem. I created a subpage to see what the article looks like with only a passing mention to the internet following. The result that I see is an incredibly detailed article on what should logically be an almost unknown children's show. There is a heck of a lot of good information on the show's origins, production, etc; basically the important details that make or break an article. The fandom may have caused the show to become notable, but the amount of information on the show itself certainly causes it to stand on its own two hooves. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem right now is that what's left is a sufficiently sourced (not to fail notability) article on the show where the bulk of the information on creation and production is sourced to EQD, which, regardless of whether it has an article here or not, is being called into question as a reliable source per the last attempt at FAC. Keeping the show and fandom coverage together boosts both, and emphasizes why EQD is, in the case, an acceptable source. But again, that's not an issue for AFD beyond that if the result is "merge", what the merge target is. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you considered assessing its reliability at WP:RSN? That would, at the least, assauge doubt on whether it can be considered reliable or not at FAC. And if an RSN assessment already exists, then it will be easy to trot out to show the reviewers who aren't entirely certain. It wouldn't be the first time it has helped an FAC. Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - as above - lack of in depth independent coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic The best source for this website is the Wired article, but it is still not significant enough. The other sources are outright passing mentions. Number of visitors, popularity, and importance of the site are irrelevant when considering notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - as suggested above. Coverage is far too thin. Yaksar (let's chat) 03:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Coverage is trivial at best.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Having looked at the sources in the article, there is some coverage in reliable sources--but I think it is a bit of a stretch to call it "significant coverage". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as outlined above. Coverage not significant enough to keep.  Begoon•talk 04:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N(web) does not say that "Number of visitors, popularity, and importance of the site are irrelevant when considering notability": there is no such phrase in the cited reference, and linking in such a way as to imply there is seems inappropriate. Though not stated in that guideline, I think it is generally accepted here that they by themselves do not prove it. I think we all agree it needs further evidence, and the Wired article is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough and discussed in reliable sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one reliable source (Wired) has discussed this site in a degree of depth. As I explained above, the coverage in one source does not establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Others disagree with you. Being mentioned in the other reliable sources seems significant to me. Dream Focus 12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just how many sources do you need exactly? One reliable source is enough. And the fact that this site is mentioned in more than one source is just a bonus. Wikipedia is not paper. We have enough space for all notable websites. The main MLP:FiM article is already big enough for this article to be merged there.  Grue  13:07, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Equestria_Daily_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140220800"