This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject My Little Pony, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of My Little Pony related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.My Little PonyWikipedia:WikiProject My Little PonyTemplate:WikiProject My Little PonyMy Little Pony articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I'm looking at the "Themes and analysis" and "Reception" sections, and it looks like the bulk of the references there are based on fan sites and blogs dedicated to the coverage of My Little Pony (e.g., Derpy News, Louder Yay, Analysis Is Magic), rather than any reputable sources. This reliance on fan sites makes the tone of this article questionable, and I just don't think there's enough to properly support a Wikipedia article for this episode. On the basis of this lack of reliability, I propose that this article be deleted. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Regardless of the sources for the reception and themes sections, the rest of the article still stands, the plot is accurate and the production section's sources are the makers of the series themselves. The section of themes and analysis mostly consists of an analysis which sources confirm the events from past episodes echoing in this one, as if there is indeed a part that is taken from an analysis on a site specialized in the series, it doesn't make the analysis less valid. As for the reception section, it is true that the reviews mostly come from sites that are also dedicated to the series, due to an abscence of reviews from mainstream media, however they are also proper reviews from sites that specialize ib reviews of episodes and/or articles related to My Little Pony in general and publish on a regular basis, and not just forum posts from casual fans voicing their opinions or such. --Hyliad (d) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (CEST)
I didn't stress the importance of third-party sources clearly enough. It isn't enough for just the plot summary to be accurate, or just adding first-party sources (statements from the creators themselves), or for the opinions and analyses to be "valid". Without reliable third-party sources, the article has no backbone. Furthermore, the over-reliance of sources that specialize in My Little Pony only provide bias in favor of the subject, when we should instead strive for a neutral tone that fairly represents the subject from as many points of view as we can find. And as you have stated, there simply aren't enough of these sources to go around for this episode. Otherwise, not only would someone have written this article as soon as this episode was released, we would've had a Wikipedia article for every other episode by now. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
After failing to find any verifiable third-party sources, I have instead decided to merge the article back into the season 6 article. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
