This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Amusement Parks: Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks 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.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts task force (assessed as Low-importance).

I haven't had a chance to check these yet: " FOX's Your World sub host Varney obsessed with 'Gay Days'" " Pat Robertson's contradictory theology: God won't stop a tsunami -- but might respond to Gay Days with an earthquake" " Miley Cyrus & Gay Days Organization To Hold Concurrent Celebrations At Disneyland" - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Citing Pete Werner of the DIS is hardly citing a trivial source when it comes to Disney expertise. He and his work has, for example, been nominated for Best Travel Podcast at the independent Podcast Awards (itself generally accepted as a reputable body within the Podcasting community) for a number of years ^[1]. Werner and his team have been invited by Disney to a number of press events and coverages, most recently for the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train Press Event, something that Disney only extends to coverage teams they consider noteworthy. I would also throw in the DIS' Facebook following of over 150,000 individuals ( https://www.facebook.com/the.dis), showing that they have built up a substantial following and acceptance as leaders within the Disney community. Finally I would just point to the body of work itself. I don't believe it would necessarily prove much as far as the Wikipedia guidelines are concerned, but the fact is that the DIS has grown over a decade into a three-podcast network, with hundreds of episodes that have expanded to cover all the US Disney Parks and Universal Studios. You don't get that big without doing something right. For what it's worth, I am not a 'super fan' of their work trying to push their stuff through. I actually don't listen to the podcast, I just browse their planning sites because of the reputation they have built up as a go-to repository of information, a reputation that I hope I have shown to be widely accepted within the Disney Community as non-trivial and therefore worthy of inclusion in this article. Sevey13 ( talk) 15:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

You are quoting Pete Werner from his site ( wdwinfo.com). If his opinion on the matter is meaningful, an independent reliable source will provide it. How "big" the website has gotten is immaterial (as is whether it was by doing something right or wrong or through a skillful application of magic pixie dust. Your arguments are that he is notable. Maybe, maybe not:

That's an argument for whether or not there should be an article for him or his website. In either case, he has opinions on lots of things and we could easily chop his site's content into hundreds of thousands of pieces to be inserted in hundreds of thousands of articles, none of which would be appropriate.

Logic check: Boing Boing is a notable tech/politics/whatever blog. If I spent the next several weeks focused on it 24/7, I couldn't begin to insert their opinions into the hundreds of thousands of tech/politics subjects they have discussed. I wouldn't do this for two reasons: 1) I have no desire to waste several weeks of my life doing all that work and fighting the removal of all the material and 2) it would not improve the articles.

Essentially, we have one person's self-published opinion. Adding it is not an improvement. - SummerPhD ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carrotz3 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Csun7.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher ( talk) 13:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply