Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?

Adressing ≠ explaining

It explains that the webcomic homestuck which has almost the same qualities of bfdi and its notability but homestuck does not get the treatment bfdi does, as it does not differ enough from bfdi to warrant better representation

Tldr it makes it seem as though the editors just posted this on to the essay just so they could delete bfdi off of wikipedia

89.184.63.99 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Btw most company made shows dont do notable, but are on wikipedia 89.184.62.59 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

In the essay it says homestuck is notable, because it's had large media attention. I love BFDI, but it's not notable. Row666 (talk) 07:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Well i agree, but i think the reasons why bfdi isn’t notable isn’t about the whole show itself, and more about how it was brought up, it was born on youtube, growing the show took 3 years, with it coming back after 3 more years, making it so that there wasn’t a need for large media attention as it wasn’t a runaway hit.

take Tadc for example, the reason it had large media was because it had topped the charts of youtube and made millions of hits, which is different to bfdi, for example the reason bfdi 1 was so popular (at 60M) was because it was the first video made for bfdi, and many people watched it, not many liked it, it was seen as “childish and immature” which made sense (they were teens at the time), so that means even if media coverage came they would (probably) right it off as childish.

even though people like the show, and create lots of fanmade content, it is not notable.

so therefore bfdi is not notable because of this (not because of hate) 89.184.63.121 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Side note: homestuck isn’t really as good as a comparison, as something else like smg4, since smg4 had a large fanbase, but smg4 was deleted off of wikipedia, for having no notable sources (partially due to the fact smg4 took on the same role back then as Glitch Productions does now, but since it gained popularity, smg4 didn’t [require] need a wikipedia page)

that aspect didn’t have to do with anything with the show, more its situations 89.184.63.121 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Can BFDI soon article like SOTU

One day it could happen if it has a lot of good sources when it will on an article and good and reliable sources. 166.48.119.67 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope so! Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What is a good example of good sources? 89.184.63.121 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:Reliable sources. — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Giving bfdi reliable sources

I think that bfdi could get some reliable sources, with action one could write to a news forum and have them discuss it, but it could only really be made if someone submits bfdi. (I dont know any places to submit it to personally) 89.184.63.87 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Does this count as a source? [1]https://www.businesstoday.in/impact-feature/story/the-animated-series-battle-for-dream-island-makes-waves-in-india-427949-2024-05-02 89.184.63.76 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be republishing this article from Hindustan Times. If you look at this link, its disclaimer at the bottom reads: "This article is a paid publication and does not have journalistic/editorial involvement of Hindustan Times." It's paid, apparently by a member of the BFDI crew, so it is not independent. This is common for news publications in India. Plus, this disclaimer shows there was no editorial oversight for that article, and the person who wrote it is not even mentioned, so the reliability is very questionable. Therefore, that source doesn't contribute to notability (it requires independent trustworthy sources). ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

how about these samples, could you call them notable?

1) "{{tq jacknjellify is a leading YouTube channel renowned for its groundbreaking series, including Battle for Dream Island, Battle for BFDI, and BFDI: The Power of Two. With a legacy spanning over sixteen years, Jacknjellify continues to entertain its growing audience of millions of engaged viewers with its innovative storytelling and visual artistry.}}"Comes from [2]https://web.archive.org/web/20240504095141/https://pix11.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/707844321/jacknjellify-celebrates-over-16-years-of-animation-excellence-and-online-influence/ archived

2) “{{The internet can be an amazing source for entertainment, from exciting games to funny videos. Occasionally, you can come upon a certain franchise on the internet that gets you hooked. Battle For Dream Island (aka BFDI) is an internet show on YouTube, which to me, is absolutely hilarious, clever and unique.}}” Comes from [3]https://web.archive.org/web/20210423215920/http://pulse.harveyschool.org/review-battle-for-dream-island/ archived 89.184.63.76 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

1) As the URL name suggests, that is a press release. It's not independent.

2) Okay, so I've been digging around that source. It appears to be a newspaper by The Harvey School, The Pulse. Its "About" page doesn't say anything about editorial policies, which is somewhat of a red flag. It also seems that the author, Taylor Grodin, has worked in Inanimate Insanity. (I think that the source can still be independent, since he didn't work in BFDI at the time that the review was published.) Harvey Magazine's Spring 2016 issue, accessible here, says that Grodin is one of the school's alumni at page 42 (or "44/72" on the slider), indicating that The Pulse is, or was at the time of that review, a student newspaper (or at least it published a student review). Looking at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Student media, reputable student publishers can be reliable (although professional sources are preferred). I have not found any indication that The Pulse is reputable (other than a mention on The Harvey School's Wikipedia article) or that Grodin had experience as a critic. A questionable source at best. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Well could this source from harvey school be non-reliable because it came out back in 2012 and only covers the first season (and nowadays there is 5 seasons in the following 12 years) or would it be unreliable more since the source Harvey School is un-reputable, or would it have to do with both on the fact that it is old and unreputiple/unreliable? 89.184.63.76 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Both, sort of. Some info can easily become outdated and unreliable, especially when it comes to a topic, in this case a web series, that goes under a lot of changes. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Age matters. I've also seen the point that topics should be covered in a significant amount of time to be notable in AfD discussions, though I'd argue that the guideline is mostly referring to biographies and articles about events, not very applicable here to be honest.

Despite all I've said here, I would actually like to see a well written article about BFDI on Wikipedia. If it was published now, though, it probably wouldn't be well written. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

(Well written as in, accounting for credible points of view and narratives other than the creators'...) ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

How would starting the page even happen?, would you need like a bunch of sources such as harvey school? 89.184.63.76 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point of the essay - according to the general notability criteria, we need a few sources that a) are reliable, b) are independent, c) are secondary, and d) talk about it in significant detail. But as I've said, that source is questionable. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I know that, but how would the starting of the page happen?, like if we had full independent and reputable sources, and we have all this how would the page come about?, who would get the say in how the page is formed (create the page) 89.184.63.76 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, usually, when you go to a Wikipedia link to a page that doesn't exist, like by clicking a red link, there is a "Start the Some article name article" if you're on a registered and autoconfirmed account. (Since you are editing under an IP address, it will say "You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to create new articles" instead.)

In this case though, creating Battle for Dream Island is reserved for admins (i.e. the page is salted), because it was recreated too many times. I believe that, if sufficient sources are found, a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease should ask admins to unsalt/allow the creation of Draft:Battle for Dream Island (also salted as of now), so that then a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review can be opened to formally evaluate the draft and the sources. The arguments for recreation should be strong, since BFDI is listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. If it is successful, "Draft:Battle for Dream Island" will be moved (renamed) to "Battle for Dream Island". Yep, a bit tiring, but it is the case with popular topics without an article but thoroughly discussed on Wikipedia, like this one. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no talk page in bfdi’s perrenial request, is it salted? 89.184.63.76 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about Talk:Battle for Dream Island, well, it is also forbidden from creation by non-admins because the string "Battle for Dream Island" is at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Only admins can create a page with the series's name at the page's title for now. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 21:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

ClueBot, you reposted in the wrong neighborhood

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When I noticed that our The Scale of the Universe discussion was removed from this page, I tried to look for it in /Archive 1 and discovered that it wasn't there either, so I checked this page's history and found out that ClueBot III has been erroneously auto-archiving a few of our discussions to /Archives/ 1 instead. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Loophole? (Question to the editors)

If bfdi is not allowed on wikipedia since it currently has no reliable sources.

Then shouldn’t this essay be deleted?, this essay has the same amount of reliability as bfdi’s sources, which resulted to it’s deletion, speaking of the fact, there is a space in the essay where it explains bfdi (as an unreliable source) which means it doesn’t belong on wikipedia, if it is on this essay, why couldn’t it work to be it’s own page?, i mean its already on wikipedia, technically meaning that it is allowed on wikipedia just not as a page, but it is on a page on wikipedia.

yes of course i know its a stretch to say the least (this was not written to be notable, as described) but it is a fact to take note of

im not exactly in favour of deleting a page of off wikipedia, but since it is not notable It (by the same logic as bfdi) should not be allowed on wikipedia and (could/should) be deleted. 89.184.63.121 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if I fully understand your writing, but readers typically come looking for articles with a expectation of reliability and neutrality; this is not a article, this is a essay in the style of a case study, and one that regular readers won't read. Non-articles does not come with the expectation that the information is well-sourced, made even clearer by the disclaimer in the section about BFDI itself. Notability is a measure to maintain reliability and neutrality. There is no need to do so in an essay. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

i understand 89.184.63.121 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

another potential loophole (question to the editors)

Bwm If the scale of the universe was posted on to wikipedia as an entry doesn’t that mean jacknjellify/carykh could? (jacknjellify and bfdi are two completely separate entities, jnj only made bfdi) get a wikipedia page as-well?, sotu was made by carykh and this video is on carykh and also had bits and pieces of sotu made in a series called the big stuff Meaning that the jnj and/or carykh channels would be posted onto wikipedia.

But carykh and jnj dont have any sources, but do they really not?

If someone posted a video on youtube that they *fully made* and a large organisation posts reliable sources onto it, making it reliable enough to have it posted to wikipedia, that makes it so that *their* content is notable, including the notable video.

And if it doesn’t count that way, shouldn’t carykh have a wikipedia page attached with the video, simply because having one video on wikipedia without having the channel to go along with it doesn’t make sense.

Therefore jnj and/or carykh would be allowed to go onto wikipedia, and because most of carykh/jnj has got to do with bfdi, bfdi would be written in it as a filmography, henceforth bfdi would be allowed on wikipedia

89.184.63.76 (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

(EDIT: this is a reply to Special:Diff/1222078547 before being modified) Discussions about the reliability of certain sources are often discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. Commonly discussed sources are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Resources might also be helpful. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 19:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Notability isn't inherited. If reliable, independent sources cover SOTU in enough detail but not BFDI or any of the creators themselves, Wikipedia does the same.

Imagine a source that only analyses the gameplay of SOTU. This contributes to SOTU's notability (as long as it is independent and reliable), but not the creator's notability. For that to happen, the source should be talking about his career, personal life, or an overview of his works, because this is the kind of information that would be included in the article about Cary. If such a source doesn't exist, a biography about him would essentially be independently unverifiable.

And... just a friendly note, please don't radically change your message after you were replied to. It creates some confusion. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)