Q2: Why are Wikipedia editors biased against BFDI and against creating an article for this series?
A2:Wikipedians are not "biased" against BFDI. The creation of a Battle for Dream Island article is simply not allowed because the topic lacks notability and overly enthusiastic fans have repeatedly recreated it despite consensus favoring its deletion. This behavior is disruptive and wastes the time of those who have to delete and salt (i.e. protect a page from creation) the pages created by these said enthusiasts, which is why it is blacklisted on Wikipedia.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Battle for Dream Island and/or related topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Battle for Dream Island and/or related topics at the Reference desk.
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
To review BFDI, the news/review company has to watch the show, but that is likely to introduce bias (BFDI is popular, after all, so remaining bored and disinterested is a pointlessly difficult task,) therefore making such a source near impossible to be reliable. Therefore such a source is unlikely to exist unless BFDI is forgotten, but as it seems to be quite the contrary (BFDI is gaining views at an exponentially increasing rate), an article is almost impossible to exist until the year 2500 at best (it usually takes centuries for popularity to die out). Moreover, reliable sources are slowly becoming more difficult to obtain, so an article on BFDI is unlikely to exist until the year 3000, and if there aren’t any reliable sources by 3500 it will become truly impossible. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. 121.200.5.211 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources does not mean unbiased. Independent means that the subject is unaffiliated from the source. Reviewers doesn't have to be "bored and disinterested". in fact, if they are writing a review about it, it shows that they like or do not like it enough to write an article about it. Catalk to me!06:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, many review companies have strict guidelines for what can and can’t be reviewed, but if a review can exist, one most likely would have existed several months ago. Few significant events related to BFDI have occurred within the last few months. 121.200.5.211 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly in my opinion, there probably is one. The fact is that most of bfdi’s seasons are overlapped. For instance bfdi is a term used by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, and searching up stuff like “bfdi review” for example, will likely give you a source from it.
there are hundreds and thousands of millions of pages on the internet, most of it is obscure because it is either old or non findable.
Considering this. Most of the pages that talk about it are probably deleted or on Archive.org.
but even when considering this. Searching for bfdi at this point is almost impossible. Even if it exists it’s probably buried under unrelated websites like fandom or imbd to a point where it is non existence. Led lore (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So yes. It can exist. Its not purposefully impossible to make one, one just doesn’t exist. (This is a bit biased) but the new seasons which are tpot or bfdia(b) have tv show levels of quality, so it would be less likely to be disliked by a news source.
if it does exist. Likely it would be something like Tadc’s situation. Where it gets so popular that many news sources comment on it
Though, the main reason that bfdi doesn’t get a news article. Is because it’s not in high demand. Most people are fine with having no wikipedia page (because of sites like Fandom (website)) Led lore (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking news outlets to comment on bfdi is a good way too get a review on it.. but it should not be overdone.
if you want a news article.. please don’t ever spam it, it may seem infuriating if there’s no response but posting it over and over again is not a good thing to do. Led lore (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having an entire section dedicated to "Plagiarism and copyright violation" is out of place on the grounds that such an act is simply not very common even with a handful of users uploading copyrighted images or copying text from BFDI Fandom. Copyright violation, along with draft expiration (CSD G13, such as this log), is not one of the major reasons for deleting BFDI articles, unlike notability and what Wikipedia is not. AlphaBeta135talk20:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't you the one who added it in the first place? To be honest, a lot of them don't take Wikipedia'a guidelines seriously, so I'd personally keep it. 118.148.76.104 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I'm declaring my conflict of interest. I work with Jacknjellify (Battle for Dream Island) / other object show creators. Here are some sources for the Wikipedia community to review. After publishing these links, I will be stepping away from this conversation as I am biased and want this article to be created.
A note about these links. I did actively peruse having interviews and press coverage, getting these created was a paid effort. Even though they were paid, the news publications still had to be willing to have these articles up.
I believe these articles show significant coverage and notability for our community.
Hello and welcome! Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. I would recommend reviewing the explanatory guide at Wikipedia:Independent sources, particularly in the #Examples section:
"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. [...] A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material." (italic emphasis mine)
I've seen an accusation of racism on that Twitter fiasco... To clarify, Indian sources are not banned - editors consider The Indian Express generally reliable, for example, and I've used it a few times. The thing to look out for is news articles that appear bloated with flowery language, suggesting some kind of promotional intent. This is sadly a bit prevalent on Indian media (there's an entire article about it), but yes, this is evaluated case-by-case. The person who started this discussion even agrees that these specific sources were paid, and I linked to a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources section to demonstrate that there's consensus to exercise caution when using paid sources to establish notability. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haven't cary & michael directly talked about keeping BFDI casual and not being a big famous show like this?? these are great articles but i highly doubt you're actually peter ruette XanderK09 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think you need to stop replying to everyone in the comment section with irrelevant arguments, i love bfdi too and i DO want it to get an article but this is not the way to go about it and makes everyone look bad XanderK09 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you people at wikipedia would be opposed to BFDI's inclusion, and we can agree to disagree, that's fine, but when it gets to the point of condescendingly writing paragraphs about how BFDI will never be on this site, and viscously hounding anyone who disagrees, that's too far. You guys are just trying to stir up drama and unnecessary tension. 81.2.157.231 (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide WP:DIFFS of people "viscously hounding anyone who disagrees"? Claims of wrongdoing should be supported with evidence. All I see above is people calmly explaining the guidelines.
I don't really see which parts of this essay reads condescending; can you provide examples? This essay is written since so that the numerous people who try to make articles about BFDI becomes informed of the reasoning behind the deletions. Most viewers of BFDI are kids so explanations are worded simply.
Look I understand where you’re coming from but.. to put it simply.. the wikipedia page needs to be written.. but we have to know what to write to write a page.. so we get the info from reviews that are proven to be true.. but bfdi has none of these types of reviews..
It's just that you guys are giving big "QUIT HAVING FUN" energy, and what are you trying to do, get a rise out of us BFDI fans? Is this some kind of mass personal vendetta you hold against an innocent community? Do you seriously lack the basic human decency to treat innocent people with respect? Do you realize how big the BFDI community is? Trust me, all this is basically you digging your own grave. If this issue gets the spotlight on the BFDI wiki, there will be hundreds if not thousands of unhappy BFDI fans that will only make this problem worse. 81.2.157.231 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I used to be a regular watcher of BFDI and still is a fan. I check up on the fandom once in a while. I am sure no one wants to be killjoys here: people would be scrambling to write a Wikipedia article about BFDI if reliable sources were published (take the article The Scale of the Universe as an example). Sadly none exists as of writing. That said, I think it would suit you well to take Cary Huang's advice and take a moment to calm down. Catalk to me!09:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please grow up. People like you are part of the reason why I am personally done with the object shows community. Wikipedia is not a directory for everything that does, has, and will exist, get over it. 118.148.78.118 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the essay and see how the term "notability" doesn't mean what you think it does in Wikipedia. It isn't a measure of real-life importance or significance. It is a test to see if a neutral and verifiable article could be written about topic. Otherwise, we are duplicating the hard work of other fan-written wikis. Catalk to me!13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A long running, award winning web series that had a multi-city tour across the USA, official merchandise, a Scholastic book tie-in, and had people like Kevin Macleod, Tomska, etc as guest stars. It seems the only way to get BFDI to have a wikipedia page is to get Donald Trump to watch it. People like Scott The Woz and Chuggaaconroy have less subscribers and less views, yet he is allowed to have a Wikipedia page? If you want news coverage, Microsoft news covered it recently. Feels like a lot of bias here. Brian Koch (a director for Inanimate Insanity and someone who works for Nickelodeon) disagrees with the No BFDI/II policy on Wikipedia, and so do I. You claim Tomska has reliable sources (who also voice acted on BFDI) but not Jacknjellify/Animationepic? AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference this tweet appears to have brought you here. It's easy to understand why you'd think Wikipedia is being unfair to BFDI but to be honest it doesn't seem like you've read this page well enough. Wikipedia's criteria for notability and how BFDI doesn't meet them are both discussed thoroughly. Unless you have a new reliable, independent source you can link to, the fact that BFDI doesn't have a Wikipedia article isn't likely to change. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's my point: it isn't anyone's "belief" that BFDI isn't notable that prevents the article's creation. It is a lack of reliable, independent sources that renders BFDI to not be notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I read through the responses to that Twitter post and most of the people criticizing how Wikipedia works have no idea how Wikipedia works. For those who happen to read this comment, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the popularity of a subject. A person who only a handful of people have ever heard of can be more notable than BFDI, with which millions are likely familiar. I know this is counterintuitive, which is why I said I understand why you think it's unfair that BFDI doesn't have an article. An article on BFDI could be created tomorrow if we find sources that would make such an article meet the notability criteria. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe it doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But if a "award winning web series that had a multi-city tour across the USA, official merchandise, a Scholastic book tie-in, and had people like Kevin Macleod, Tomska, etc as guest stars." doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines then maybe the problem is with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 2007GabrielT (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I severely dislike the term "Notability"; I believe it to be one of the worst-named guideline whether in or outside Wikipedia. Very counterintuitively, "Notability" in Wikipedia is not a measure of real-life significance. If it is, I'd agree with you that it is failing spectacularly and BFDI merits an article. But the truth is that it's all about sourcing. If there are no sources without a conflict of interest, is it possible write a wp:neutral article? If there are no reliable sources, how could a Wikipedia article be verifiable and reliable? Catalk to me!09:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a wikipedia page to be verifiable and reliable it only needs to be based on verifiable facts, which if we don't look at the rules, can be the non independent articles. (Some in fact are allowed to come from primary sources via this rule) As for it being neutral, while in theory would be hard to do without many independent articles, would in practice be very easy to do because what the hell is there to be biased about here? 2007GabrielT (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the rules say. My point is that if the rules say that BFDI doesn't get a page despite being very popular then the rules are bad and should be fixed. 2007GabrielT (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not circular reasoning thats just you saying the same thing twice.
"The "rules" are bad because BFDI is popular and don't have a article." means the same thing as " BFDI don't have a article because the "rules" are bad"
The rule are bad because they don't allow BFDI to have page. Thus BDFI doesn't have page because the rules are bad. I don't see anything circular. 2007GabrielT (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copied how the rules explain themselves - basically, solely citing the non-independent sources on an article may be seen as advertising, and it would be hard to neutrally explain the cultural impact of the series on the article without an independent source. ObserveOwl (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all havent updates your notability guidelines since 2002, y'all should remoce the indpendent sources rule, the internet is too interconnected to need independent sources AmericanAccount704 (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe the universe will end before an independent article exists. The problem isn't Wikipedia, the problem isn't BFDI, the problem is the coverage guidelines or personal opinions of notable, reliable, independent companies' effect that rules out the possibility of a reliable source's existence. The independent companies are just following set guidelines that govern the coverage or exclusion of certain shows. The guidelines are supposed to prevent obscure shows from being covered, but mistakes happen, and "BFDI" has been possibly labeled as obscure and/or unnecessary. It's not anyone's fault "BFDI" is unique. 124.149.252.234 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the problem is Wikipedia. If BFDI is popular thing then it should have a Wikipedia page. If anything about Wikipedia's rules prevent BFDI from having a page then the problem are those rules. 2007GabrielT (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. as a fellow bfdi fan, I understand your outrage, but making a BFDI page would be impossible to do. If you didn't read this page clearly, it's that BFDI might be notable, but news articles haven't talked about it alot. Homestuck might also be on the same level as BFDI, However it has way more news articles than bfdi. If you wanna complain, at EVERY article refrences are needed. It's not as simple as "Write up factual info". However a Cary Huang article may be possible.
Cary and Michael Huang made the scale of the universe, which has its own wikipedia page, covered by many independent news outlets, even if BFDI never gets a wikipedia page, Cary and Michael Huang should. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if another BFDI x Inanimate Insanity meetup were to take place ot the White House's South Lawn during the easter egg roll, the meetup aspect of the event would still have to get sustained coverage in reliable independent sources before a de-salting of Battle for Dream Island could be considered. On its own, a simple mention of BFDI (or object shows in general) by any current or former president would still not be enough. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“reliable independent sources” dawg the whole show is on YouTube it exists what proof do you need??????? Wasn’t the slogan of Wikipedia “Free Knowledge for one and all” and not “Some Knowledge for some people”. You guys let island villages with content small enough to fit on a pamphlet, that has no citations AT ALL (in fact I found a page for a place that DOESN’T EVEN EXIST!) but you won’t let us write about 36 hours of content that’s been made for over 14 years, that’s garnered millions of views, a tour/meetup. Wikipedia is falling, all because of stupid things like this. Honestly the more time I spend on here the more I realize how outdated the system is. RmationYT (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for documenting everything. What kind of info would a Wikipedia article about BFDI offer besides what's in the official channel or the Fandom wiki? Many times, views and subscribers are useful to note on an article, but by itself, it doesn't explain what people like about the show (what citeable professional reviews say) or the kind of community it spawned, the OSC. This is why independent sources are important for Wikipedia to tell the whole story (and also to prevent advertising). What non-existent place are you referencing? ObserveOwl (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the reason why there is no BFDI wikipedia page is because no independent sources, IMO that shouldn,t be a rule anymore, Wikipedia hasn't updated their notablility guidelines since 2002, and Wikipedia doesn't care about how interconnected the internet is. Why does the town of Monticello, AR (who has even heard of that random place and a population of less than 10,000) have a Wikipedia page (BFDI probably has more fans than people in Arkansas.) It is even more bogus why the Huang Twins don't have their own wikipedia page, The Scale of the Universe (a project by the Huang Twins) has a wikipedia page, the Huang Twins should have their own wikipedia page. If you're not gonna add BFDI to wikipedia, at least add it to the Simple English Wikipedia as those pages don't need to be heavily sourced. This page did not need to be a college essay. you could have just said "no independent sources=no page" AmericanAccount704 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Omg for realllllll one of my biggest gripes about this website is that it’s trying so hard to be professional it forgot the reason why it exists: to make knowledge more accessible. Like please people stopped reading the news a decade ago. RmationYT (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument hinges on the fact that BFDI has no independent sources, then you explain why Object shows are to be blocked even if there is independent sources. You could blame news outlets, but it is really Wikipedians deflecting, the Huang Twins meet all the criteria for a wikipedia page, because the scale of the universe (which has a wikipedia page) has been well documented by many news outlets, and ABACABA videos made rounds durng the pandemic, and even Cary's own planet. Yet given all of the huang twins accomplishments, y'all say they should not be documented whatsoever because too many young people are passionate about BFDI, i wouldn't be surprised to see this go to the Arbitration Committee. Following your same criteria, the only reason Eddsworld has a page because Edd sadly passed away. At the very least, allow Cary and Michael huang pages, and stop barring guest stars from having BFDI/II/object shows in general on their filmography. You did not need to make this a whole essay, just state the reason in a paragraph. If it is EXTREMELY well known with national events, acknowledged by famous people, etc, it may not need a large amount of independent sources. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could read WP:BACKWARD and WP:YFA, and start an article about Cary and Michael Huang yourself, since you say there are sources that meet WP:N. If you are right and do it right (you should probably read WP:BLP as well if you decide to try this) you could be successful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope that you two are joking. I'm a BFDI fan, I agree with this statement. But for someone who claims to be a real BFDI fan, I don't think you would dismiss a claim like that? Wikipedia is for being mature. TL;DR Next time read the whole statement and try to make peace. Also I'm not trying to be rude I'm just trying to tell you not to do this! :) - Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear even if independent sources are found, you will not add it due to bias, goodbye, if you have to ban me from ever mentioning object shows on wikipedia (i made a typo lol,) i will take it without argument. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can't we just make a stub page that says "bfdi was made in is a intrnet show (year) and is still ongoing" and not put anything else in it? Tankfarter (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but an article simply saying "this started in X and is ongoing" wouldn't mention the impact, so it would be eligible for speedy deletion. If it was on the article, it would need to cite at least two or three in-depth independent reliable sources; otherwise, it would get nominated for AfD (or PRODded). There's some reasoning for this at Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements. ObserveOwl (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been going on since nearly 2010, and while it's being done by multiple, likely-unrelated users, some have resorted to sockpuppetry and gaming the system, amongst other conduct violations.
While LTA is typically for users, and while many of the BFDI fanatics are likely unrelated, I do think the whole BFDI disruption fits the other criterion for LTA. 118.148.78.50 (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro I’m a BFDI fan and I can tell you NO ONE can be that cooperative. I think it’s just because a lot of BFDI fans are just really REALLY passionate towards the show, which is why they really want it to have a page. RmationYT (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must preface this message by saying that the essay is pretty well-written and I hold no ill will towards the Wikipedia community. However, at some points, the essay seems to have conflated Battle for Dream Island with closely related web series Inanimate Insanity along with the genre (dubbed "object shows") at large.
Now, while this confusion certainly lies more so on the side of insignificance (the essay definitely still does get the point across), I believe it would still be best for a distinction to be made and clarified, likely somewhere in the background section. Such a conflation would be tantamount to, say, confusing Survivor with Big Brother or any reality competition TV series, and may undermine the perceived authenticity of the essay to the reader. 171.239.19.186 (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BFDI has won an award; Cartoon Crave, quite a while ago. Maybe there is a new article for any of that.
The first is WP:BLOG, doesn't help. The second one looks interesting per Business Today (India), but "Impact feature", language like "Samuel Thornbury's creative genius shines brightly, cementing his legacy as an animation director par excellence and a true trailblazer in the world of digital storytelling" and WP:RSNOI make me worry this is paid content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the second one is reliable, since I know the show and I can verifiably say it’s leaving out alot, but the award website could be considered as a new source? RmationYT (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fan of BFDI like you. However, these people against the creation of an article are correct. This fandom and series do not have any major news coverage. Cartoon Crave is considered a smaller and likely source of unsure reliability, also they mention many sources have to report on it. It is a shame it is not here, but rules here about reporting are greater than our wishes for an article. Coolman1151 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m all for giving BFDI a page but this probably wouldn’t help 😞
I guess we can have like- severely outdated Michael and Cary Huang pages if we should “only stick to what’s said in the news BLAH BLAH BLAH I LOVE THE NEWS”
Kudos to you for finding a source this obscure! I agree it would be useful for an article about Michael and Cary Huang, but more up-to-date sourcing is needed for a decent article. Catalk to me!16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a BFDI fan, but I think the lack of sources is not necessarily a good thing. Without such sources one could just make an article full of misinformation. Coolman1151 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BFDI not having a page is pretty dumb considering that it is VERY popular and gets referenced a bit in other media. Also, it literally beat Helluva Boss in the Cartoon Crave awards. DingusTheBirb (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, BFDI is not notable enough for Wikipedia as of now.
To combat your reasons:
!. According to the Article, Popular ≠ Notable. You must have primary and secondary sources to have an article. This is why The Scale of the Universe has and article.
2. What media? (Not including other Object Shows nor any show on YouTube)
3. As for the Cartoon Crave thing, It's likely that it's not notable as an award ceremony either, although I'm not certain.
BFDI articles in the past relied on unreliable sources, like Fandom (a user generated site) or fan YouTube videos, and were generally biased because they were fans.
Wikipedia was built on “Free Knowledge for one and all”, but it feels like you guys are just trying to overcomplicate everything.
Your reliance on news articles for citations doesn’t really make sense here. The entirety of the show is publicly available, so why would you need someone to say something about it to prove its existence? Wikipedia has a lot of things on it that don’t exist. I’ve seen islands on this website that aren’t even real places, and no coverage online, news article or not.
I KNOW what you guys are going to tell me. “B-but! We need a neutral standpoint”. I have breaking news for you: News CAN also be biased. You editors need to remember that the “neutral standpoint” seen on pages are actually an amalgamation of everyone’s words. I’d be willing to bet articles on the front page used to be biased. WE clean them up.
I guess another problem you guys care about is notability. Things can be notable without entering news. BFDI has: Done multiple meetups, Started like three different lines of merch, won an award, has over 1.5B views on all of its 80 or something episodes combined (averaging 1 million in at most, 3-5 days this year), got a scholastic book, and is technically in the top 3 most viewed YouTube indie series. You guys have to learn that maybe there are other ways to prove notability
BFDI already has its own wiki, which has more than enough information, much more than a Wikipedia page can provide. And besides, if news is biased, people can just remove those citations and replace them with appropriate ones. (or remove the whole section if necessary.) hi (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few publications widely regarded as biased, like professional review websites or some advocacy organizations, are considered reliable due to their editorial standards when it comes to validity of claims. What's important to understand is that opinionated statements should be attributed ("The Lorem Ipsum Times critic John Doe regarded BFDI as the best series to ever exist.") ObserveOwl (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Things can be notable without entering news" You're right. We also accept book coverage from non-self publishers, academic coverage found on areas such as the Wikipedia Library or Google Scholar, among other methods. This is how Wikipedia was built and, while I understand it may be confusing or an "outdated system" as you stated (though I would disagree with that sentiment), this is an essential system to make sure content can be: a. easily verified and b. remain neutral, as others have said. Even when the sources are biased, we tend to attribute them as opinion pieces. If you still disagree and insist that a page be created anyways, I don't really know what to tell you besides that you're not helping. λNegativeMP118:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Wikipedia is a community project. Beyond the fact that the 1st Amendment pertains to the US government, not Wikipedia, having the right to say something doesn't always mean it is the most constructive or collegial thing to do. Or, to quote Jurassic Park:
"[They] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
account made just to complain about bfdi not being on wikipedia. RmationYT also features in this description but he started like a day ago shJunpeitalk20:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they should at least be properly warned first. I think with this talk page section, they've now been warned, and if disruption continues from here, ANI, yes. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though I haven't been active on wikipedia in quite some time, I came here after seeing this person bragging on the BFDI fandom about how they "cooked" the people on wikipedia, and came here to read it. While it is somewhat immature, I don't see how making a wikipedia account solely to argue on an issue is worthy of getting blocked. It's just a talk page and they aren't doing any harm and I don't see how them making the account specifically for that reason is any different from an active contributor arguing the same case. Spacebyte (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ive been reading some articles on homestar runner, and some of them use citations from the wiki. however, if the h*r wiki can be cited, then why cant bfdi's wiki be cited? plus h*r's wiki can still be edited, even though it is (honestly) much more well-managed. not trying to attack, im just wondering.
So basically I found that for some reason the Japanese (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_dream_island) Wikipedia has an article for BFDI. Do other language Wikipedias have their own notability guidelines? Because after translating the article I found it had no sources and just some external links to Jacknjellify's YT page and the Fandom wiki. I know it has what appears to be a candidate for deletion template at the top but this feels really odd. 81.2.157.231 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. The different WP:s have their own people (though some editors edit WP in more than one language) and their own rules. The article may be deleted on ja-WP or not, it doesn't matter here. More at WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the nominator is actually fluent in Japanese, nominating an article in a language they don't speak is rarely appropriate; machine translations (e.g. Google Translate) can be inaccurate, especially with complex syntaxes. Also, WP:BFDI only applies to English Wikipedia (WP:BFDI is only hosted on enwiki) because Japanese Wikipedia does not have the same problems with BFDI as its English counterpart. AlphaBeta135talk15:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I know this isn’t gonna work and let me preface this by saying I love the work all Wikipedia editors do but I feel like the “oh it isn’t notable because no news sources have covered it” argument is kinda just not a good argument when something is THIS popular. News articles are written when something interesting happens about the show not just because it exists. it’s just some silly show about objects with nothing news-level-notable around it which means it doesn’t have any news-worthy material but it’s genuinely REALLY popular despite that.
I probably sound like an idiot to anyone who doesn’t know anything about this show but I will stand by the point that I’m right. 2601:188:CE01:890:647A:83DE:D048:BB11 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Babysharkboss gave an oversimplified answer. Good sources are not limited to just news sources. They can be books, articles, a reputable reviewer's animation blog, etc. Counterintuitively, Wikipedia's definition "notable" does not mean "news-worthy". THey mean if there are enough good sources to base a Wikipedia article. Catalk to me!03:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
