Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ever After High


 * 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. Apologies for earlier misclose, fault is mine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ever After High

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We are not a catalog--this is the equivalent of a list of Lego boxes. There's only one reliable reference, and that one does not discuss these dolls in any kind of meaningful way. And even if it did, there is no reason why an encyclopedia should include a list of dolls. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is the only piece of significant coverage I could find. If an independent article is not warranted at this time I would support a redirect to Monster High as a plausible search term.  Gong   show  17:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could live with a redirect for a plausible search term. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep the publisher's weekly piece certainly counts toward WP:N. is probably an acceptable source.   There is also a bit at  and a couple of other equivalent things from the bussiness side (all shorter than the Fool link). I think it's over the bar, but just barely.  Largely turns on if sdccblog.com is reliable, and it certainly looks to be.  Hobit (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While it's title does have the word "unofficial" and "blog" in it, it looks to be an organized
 * Keep per Hobit. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom, plus don't believe it meets notability. Also, the cites are not significant/reliable one being a youtube video.  Caffeyw (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific problems with the sources listed above? Also, the youtube content appears to be from the company, making it a reasonable primary source (don't help with notability of course, but is a reliable source). Hobit (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. It's a new line of toys/dolls but doesn't clear the notability bar for me.  The SDCC blog is not useful for notabbility for a few reasons.  Most blogs are not considered a reliable source, and this one in particular is labelled "San Diego Comc-Con Unofficial Blog" (emphasis added); and Mattel were an exhibitor at SDCC so it's independence is quiet questionable as well. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While it does have the words "unofficial" and "blog" in the title, I get the impression that is a historical artifact. The site has a managing editor, an editor-in-chief, etc.   Further, as it isn't part of SDCC, but rather is a dedicated source for covering it, I don't see an independence problem. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even so, the blog covers on the the selection of topics is so narrow that I don;t credit this is as useful for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Hobit.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 06:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  23:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment On the one hand, there's already a Wikia for them, so the information is not going to be unavailable. On the other, it's quite likely that a franchiser of this sort from this company wil become sufficiently well-known that there is certain to be material. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2013 (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.