Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Listing BFDI in a filmography

Hello, I have a question. If a notable person has acted in BFDI, and the role isn't verified by reliable third-party sources (but verified by non-independent ones), can it still be mentioned in a filmography section? TomSka has voiced Pineapple from BFDIA 10 and a few editors have tried to add it there, I reverted two of them (since I recall receiving advice from WP:IRCHELP about requiring independent sources for filmographies most of the time), but I have been re-reverted. I can't see much guidance about the use of non-independent reliable sources at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too selective unless they have had been in a lot of roles. TomSka already has a huge filmography section, so requiring independent sources should narrow down the important entries. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well in a regard the creators of bfdi did alot, even as children 89.184.63.87 (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Are the only reliable sources the ones on Here? and does the salted list of sources increase if someone asks the admins of the list? 89.184.63.60 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really, see this section. There is a longer list at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide, but other sources that are not listed can still be reliable given context. I am not sure what you mean by "salted list of sources", maybe Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island? This page is not salted at the moment. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 06:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not know about the source assessment, i think harvey school could make a good source, even if it could get rejected as the source is Questionable Led lore (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should be paying even more attention to this lead if I'm being honest.- Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Requirements for a reliable source on Wikipedia are relatively high - they include a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which this student review doesn't show. The general notability threshold only asks for reliable ones, so that source just doesn't help meet it either. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 21:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

We have to get a deemed reliable to cover BFDI. But the question is how? - Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

(Lol i love your name)i think the way to get one is to make a new one, but have it be reliable and reputable.

i think asking someone that is currently making animated reviews to do one on bfdi, this is how i’d think it would need to be done, but it would probably be a little naggy to just up and ask someone to do it, but it’s a way to do it.

or maybe if we keep searching deeper for more bfdi sources we can find some, thats the way i found the hindustrian times source and harvey school’s.

therefore, a bfdi wikipedia page is possible, im sure it could be done, but work will be needed. Led lore (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup exactly! A while ago, I made a request to Cartoon Brew to cover the series, for instance. They haven't yet done that, but it was worth trying... ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 07:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

(Ty lol) I think both of you guys are going on the right track but can someone explain to be a little bit more about why Harvey School might not fit the criteria. Taylor Grodin never worked on BFDI that I know of, only II. We’ve been really close with Hindustan times in my opinion too. @Led lore@ObserveOwl Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the Harvey School review was published on a website without a clear reputation for fact-checking and made by a student without qualifications for film/TV reporting or criticism (not reliable for facts or due for opinions) and the Hindustan Times piece is just paid news (not independent). They don't count anything towards notability in the Wikipedia sense. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 11:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay that cleared up some things. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that what needs to be done is that I (someone) could contact some (Cartoon/entertainment based) reviewer that would review bfdi, but for the later seasons, because again (arguably) starting on season one could drive some people off as Season one was made by 12 year old's and therefore, is childish.

But the thing about bfdi season one is that it becomes less childish as it goes on, bfdia (which is my favorite season) is a lot more straight-forward and it can get childish (a lot less so), but bfb (season 3) is when bfdi gets the goofieness and the seriousness is most balanced

hopefully Cartoon brew does get the message and does a review (cartoon brew probably had a lot of messages to go through so it could take a little bit) Led lore (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess, but I would prefer a source that would give an overview of all seasons, or perhaps more importantly its impact on Internet culture, so that the Wikipedia article citing it would be more complete. Cocomelon is childish, too, but it is notable for the popularity, and the most viewed videos by Jacknjellify include quite a few from the first season. After all, these first episodes started the whole OSC.

However, I would like to make just a quick reminder that we have other 6 million articles to improve. This thread is not entirely unproductive, but I think there are more useful things to do than sticking so much to a talk page of a Wikipedia essay. (I have schoolwork to do, too...) Having said that, if there's anything new about BFDI's coverage on reliable sources, anyone should feel free to let us know here, of course! ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 17:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Cocomelon?, sure I understand what you thought i meant by childish, i just meant that, bfdi seemed childish in a way that most of the humor is (not in my opinion) lower brow, for example, the fact that there was a constant gag of a character (rocky) throwing up on everyone, shows this.

cocomelon is childish as it was made for, well, children.

bfdi was made by, well, children. So you could excuse it for being lowbrow as they were young, and you can excuse it more because of the fact as when they grow older, bfdi matures. Led lore (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Cocomelon?, sure I understand what you thought i meant by childish, i just meant that, bfdi seemed childish in a way that most of the humor is (not in my opinion) lower brow, for example, the fact that there was a constant gag of a character (rocky) throwing up on everyone, shows this.

cocomelon is childish as it was made for, well, children.

bfdi was made by, well, children. So you could excuse it for being lowbrow as they were young, and you can excuse it more because of the fact as when they grow older, bfdi matures. Led lore (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh and side-note, you shouldn’t stop looking for bfdi sources, even unreliables like hindustrian, and especially harvey school had to be looked for, they were obscure (especially harvey school) Led lore (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There doesnt seem to be that many though, its a hard find ):, probably means one needs to be made. Led lore (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Hindustan times is reliable but that it was paid by the creators therefore not independent. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times disclaimer says that "This article [...] does not have journalistic/editorial involvement of Hindustan Times", and indeed sponsored content often bypasses editorial oversight. Clearly unreliable, shouldn't be used on the Wikipedia article when it becomes otherwise notable. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 21:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think most of your focus of the hindustan times is held almost fully towards the setence "This article [...] does not have journalistic/editorial involvement of Hindustan Times" Led lore (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

not bad, im just pointing it out Led lore (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Guys should we try using case sensitive results to find so only results with battle for dream island will show? Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Well it would help more if you used more broad terms like bfb (battle for bfdi) tpot (bfdi: the power of two) bfdia (battle for dream island again) and idfb (doesn’t need it)

reviewers are likely to submit onto one season at a time, for example.

making a review on season 4 would be making a review on bfb (battle for bfdi)

it’s likely that expanding search queries could help find them, use words like review or reviewed.

(Sry idk about case sensitivity) Led lore (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh basically put in google “Battle for Dream island” and only results showing will appear that’s a pretty good why to find sources haven’t found when yet tho Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much of a difference. google:"Battle+for+Dream+Island" gives practically the same results as google:"Battle+for+Dream+island". Wikipedia distinguishes between "ice cube" and "Ice Cube", but Google does not, it is not case sensitive. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

But to different seasons it definitely does, typing in “battle for dream island” its only going to be on season one, typing in “battle for dream island again” will get you season 2 typing in the shorthands, might get the sources?, but usually, reviewers use the long hand (for example, a TADC article wouldn’t use TADC, instead they would say “The Amazing Digital Circus” as it’s its official name. Led lore (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

How about these ones from NNNG, on TPOT 7 and on TPOT 8, they are independent sources (unofficial), and the about us page explicitly states that, "We adhere strictly to a high standard of journalistic principles and practices so that our readers can trust what they read on our website.", which is something that the Hindustan times article wasn’t.

so could this be a source? Led lore (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow add this to the source assessment this is big it could meet GNG. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Also @Led lore how did you find these? Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If it does meet GNG i'll create a draft if the admins are okay with it. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh and it's not AI generated! Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because the website says they are reliable does not mean the website actually has a high standard of journalistic principles. NNNG is an obscure news website that appears to pump out 50+ articles per day, with no authors listed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I didn’t look into things to much since the Tpot 7 article explicitly states “Disclaimer: The information provided above is intended for general informational purposes only. While we strive to present accurate and reliable information, we make no explicit or implied guarantees regarding the information’s accuracy, completeness, or reliability on the Site.”, I understand that this news source seems suspicious but on the Tpot 8 article, if it doesn’t say that, doesn’t it mean that it’s reliable (since they disclose what isn’t reliable?) Led lore (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ca@Led lore there is no consensus to weather NNNG so I think it could be reliable we would have to get a consensus for that. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really consider no consensus sources reliable by default. Again, reliability requirements are fairly high on Wikipedia, and they should be demonstrated when a source is cited. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

And yea, the website is very poorly designed and has too many ads, a sign of content farming. I don't see how it is at the same standards of a reliable source on Wikipedia. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

So it’s independent, not reliable and significant coverage? Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Are reliable sources not allowed to run ads?, i mean wikipedia is against paid publications, especially for sources, but if the website has ads, is it guaranteed non reliable?, (sidenote, i understand that nonsto news nigeria isn’t reliable, as it doesn’t have authors listed and is poorly designed, so i will no longer use it as a source), also most websites need to be payed for to be available, so advertisements will go towards the website’s funds) Led lore (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a small news source trying to grow bigger. If it’s reliable in the future could it count to WP:GNG. I think it could. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable publications can run ads, but it was too many, and Ca has noted the high number of low-quality articles they're publishing. It just has a lot of characteristics of a content mill that just wants ad revenue without regards to accuracy. If it is a small news source, it probably isn't reputable enough. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 12:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Popularity doesn’t indicate reliability, A very popular source that is unreliable and popular is common, For example sources like The Canary (website) or the daily wire Led lore (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yea, some popular/long-lasting sources like Daily Mail are unreliable or even deprecated. But in many cases, small ones also don't have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" described at the reliable sourcing guideline. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 16:10, 23 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.

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)

I think i found a source (the a.v club)

I knew about this source for a while, but didn’t post it because it was a bit too light in information, but as i was scrolling through this list and found out that The a.v club was listed as a source

there are two sources i found, one on BFDI and another on BFB

(there are others but these are the main ones)

i don’t think it has to be on this list to be a source, but i think it’s important to talk about. Led lore (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've encountered one of those pages before, but although The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable on that list, these pages are "Powered by IMDb", a user-generated source. And yes, I agree that it doesn't have enough information to be significant coverage, and even if it was reliable, directory/database-like listings generally don't contribute to notability per Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-1. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well a.v is listed as a reliable source, I understand that its inconclusive, but that means a.v club would be non reliable, as on all of the films it says “powered by imdb”

maybe the admins would understand Led lore (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It is important to note it says "generally" reliable. It depends on context. I think by saying that The A.V. Club is reliable, it is referring to news and reviews written by staff, like this one I picked randomly. It doesn't say "Powered by IMDb", since it is a completely different format as these BFDI listings. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 22:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh alright, then Led lore (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

But sorry for constantly posting but, technically, could This site be a source?, i mean its independent, it seems to not be paid for, the author is listed blakout74 and the topic is substantial.

technically its a wordpress website, but, its not exactly.

wordpress is a website hoster, and they do not have control of their websites on it or on blakout74’s review.

so it’s different from a reddit post or a youtube post, its independent.

im just not so sure about reliability Led lore (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlike reliable news websites, Wordpress sites are usually self-published sources, anyone can make a Wordpress blog. For it to be reliable, blakout74 should be a subject matter expert, that is, a person whose other works about films/series have been published by independent publications with a reputation for fact-checking, like The A.V. Club. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 06:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Does this apply to This one too? i mean it seems like it is reliable, as bfdi is not the only series, and it seems (at a glance) to not be wirten by ai Led lore (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Usually, in order to check whether a self-published source is reliable, I google the author's name to check for reputable websites in which they have published their work. I often encounter a LinkedIn profile, which can be helpful, though I try to verify whether the profile's previous work is true. For Beryl Parkey, I couldn't find much other than this listicle on MovieWeb. I am not sure about the reliability of that website, but even if it is, publishing a single article is very likely not enough for subject-matter expertise as Wikipedia defines it. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 09:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but what about this one?, it hasn’t got any writers credit, and seems to be partially written by one of the creators (micheal huang), so straight out the gate its unreliable Led lore (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wait there’s more [4]https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/battle-for-dream-island-an-animated-series-making-waves-in-india/ar-AA1nIAW2?ocid=BingNewsSearch Elmogosogo09 (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a republishing of the Hindustan Times source already discussed. It's just paid news, not independent. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 23:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elmogosogo09 i think what you did was type in battle for dream island into the search bar, then pressed news, (seems you use edge lol), but for more accuracy type in bfdi and put in the seasons full hand, because when someone would be reviewing bfdi, they would review it season to season. Led lore (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone found/been looking for, sources for a bfdi page creation?, it needs to have full independence (not paid, or official), it needs to be from a source that is known for fact checking and is reputable (clear authenticity and truth), and has significant coverage for the pages on wikipedia to have full references from articles (so the source talks about bfdi alot)

this all goes towards wp:gng (general notability guideline) so that the sources are legitimate then Battle for dream island could be requested for a page for the admins (it is salted/only for admins to create, since it has been created without any sources so many times) Led lore (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Umm https://www.8newsnow.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/707844321/jacknjellify-celebrates-over-16-years-of-animation-excellence-and-online-influence/ Elmogosogo09 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Press release, doesn't count. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 09:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Create page for Cary Huang

I'm a BFDI fan, I 100% agree with the main article. But one of the things i dissagree on is that Cary Hunag should not get his own article.

Cary Huang should get an article as he has been brang up by multiple sources and some famous figures as NASA and Kurgezagt for his Scale of The Universe and the asteroid named for him.

Snipertron12 Talk 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Are there any reliable independent sources talking about his career? ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

ABC

"Itsnicethat"

"Singuarity Hub"

"MichiganPublic"

"The Planetary Society"

"MIC"

"Patch"

Theres also the first reliable source for BFDI which can allow us to cite that Cary made BFDI.

Snipertron12 Talk 06:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

These seem to focus on the application instead of the creators. If there was a Cary Huang article, the only significant pieces of information that could be extracted from those sources would be that he created it along his twin brother Michael for a year and a half and released when he was 14, and that he comes from Moraga, California. It doesn't look like significant coverage of creators Cary or Michael (as opposed to the application itself), and he may fail Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. They place the twins in the context of the application, which is what the article about The Scale of the Universe is doing. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 06:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources found mabye

I think I might have found sources? Are they any good for a potential article?

1. https://www.businesstoday.in/impact-feature/story/diving-into-sound-with-daniel-booth-an-unparalleled-audio-engineer-in-the-animation-industry-434365-2024-06-22

2. https://everout.com/seattle/events/bfdi-inanimate-insanity-2024-tour/e176023/

3. https://www.miamitimesonline.com/local-events/?_evDiscoveryPath=/event/34288885t-bfdi-x-inanimate-insanity-2024-tour

Could these be potential sources for an article? Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Seeing that Business Today India once republished a paid news article about BFDI without a disclaimer (previous discussion), and that this article has a highly promotional tone, I suspect that it is paid news too.

2. It says "The following description comes from the event organizer", so it may not be independent. It doesn't cover much about what BFDI is either (no significant coverage).

3. I don't know. I can't access it ("451: Unavailable due to legal reasons"). Neither the Wayback Machine nor archive.today show it. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 15:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh? That's a bummer! Also I'm not sure why number 3 isn't working it works for me its about the BFDI x II Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It's one of the top results in news for the search "Bfdi". Mabye your local goverment blocked it or something, so that's it I'll try to find more reliable sources in the future! Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed removal of section(s)

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. AlphaBeta135talk 20:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agree with deletion. This essay has become too bloated. Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Just remove MOST of this essay and keep ONLY the important parts AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

News coverage - New Sources

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.

Thank you,

-Peter Ruette

• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/crafting-engagement-in-the-digital-age-samuel-thornburys-masterful-approach-to-content-creation-and-audience-engagement/ar-AA1nUvQu?disableErrorRedirect=true&infiniteContentCount=0
• https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/breathing-life-into-battle-for-dream-island-through-animation-how-niall-burns-is-captivating-an-ever-growing-audience/ar-BB1qmJqh
• https://www.mid-day.com/brand-media/media-and-entertainment/article/delving-into-the-genius-of-samuel-thornbury-an-animation-director-whose-work-is-gaining-immense-popularity-in-india-595
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/brand-stories/battle-for-dream-island-an-animated-series-making-waves-in-india-101714136346974.html
• https://www.mid-day.com/amp/brand-media/inspire/article/an-interview-with-daniel-booth-the-audio-engineer-behind-the-growing-popularity-of-an-award-winning-animated-series-1343
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/daniel-booth-s-creativity-success-the-sound-design-behind-jacknjellify-s-animated-content/ar-BB1oDqck
• https://www.businesstoday.in/impact-feature/story/diving-into-sound-with-daniel-booth-an-unparalleled-audio-engineer-in-the-animation-industry-434365-2024-06-22

Flyinakite (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

To cite a guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sponsored content argues that such content often bypasses editorial oversight, a determinator of reliability. The Hindustan Times piece even states that it "does not have journalistic/editorial involvement" of the publication. A few of these are Indian outlets, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations strongly cautions against using these affiliated sources for determining notability. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 19:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What, do you hate Indians or something? AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@AmericanAccount704 :/ Snipertron12 Talk 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rest assured, I will take a topic ban on BFDI, but my argument still stands AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

what?? Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 13:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Idk if i call a multi-city tour and compelling stories "casual" but ok AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@AmericanAccount704 You've used the same argument ten times. It's been de nuked over and over again. Snipertron12 Talk 03:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please provide WP:de nuke on how it has been "de nuked" (joke) AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@AmericanAccount704 :////////////// Snipertron12 Talk 03:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by ":////////////" Tankfarter (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tankfarter They are clearly unfunny. Snipertron12 Talk 12:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think both of you are not arguing in good fath Tankfarter (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

@XanderK09 true! Shjunpei (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Even more to my argument

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)

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)

@AmericanAccount704 Even if Adacaba was popular during the early2020a dosent mean it can qualify for an article. Snipertron12 Talk 15:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

They didn't dismiss it Objectsshowsarethebest, someone previously vandalised the comments. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That is correct; I reverted the vandalism. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ca @ObserveOwl Oh well now I feel stupid and rightfully so. I did not know that got vandalized sorry!!! Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Objectsshowsarethebest that was a misspelling. I meant can't. Snipertron12 Talk 00:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

MY FINAL WORD ON THIS WHOLE FIASCO

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)

@AmericanAccount704 If independent sources are found, we will unblacklist BFDI. Snipertron12 Talk 03:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. once sources can be found, it is likely a page will be made. there is no 'bias' Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 13:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Stub page

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)

That would probably be speedily deleted under A7 (no claim of significance). ObserveOwl (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean in this article it says that bfdi had a significant impact on internet Culture Tankfarter (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

ok Tankfarter (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think a short page may work on the Simple English Wikipedia AmericanAccount704 (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Simple English has pretty much the same notability guidelines as the mainstream English Wikipedia. Forget wasting your time. 118.148.72.65 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A semantic issue

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)

Would BFDI count as a long-term abuse issue?

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.

Would the whole BFDI thing be seen as "long term abuse"? It might be a good discussion. 118.148.72.65 (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that everyone who tried to make a BFDI page is in cahoots with each other? 2007GabrielT (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

I guess you could think of it as a kind of WP:CTOP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is one of a few topics listed at/on/in the page Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I've never seen that page before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Cary and Michael Huang pages should be allowed

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)

Notability is not inherited. The news articles covering The Scale of the Universe don't provide as much biographical info about the creators as the program. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Cary and Michael themselves have been covered in news outlets themselves AmericanAccount704 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Where? I'd be happy to see an independent overview (significant coverage) of the life and career of the duo. See also #Create page for Cary Huang above. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if i showed you a source from the POTUS (even though that doesnt exist yet) you would say that is faked, i am not even gonna try AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@AmericanAccount704 If the reference isn't independent.* Snipertron12 Talk 03:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

“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)

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)

You can prove Lake Station, MO exists but not BFDI? AmericanAccount704 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not disputed that BFDI exists, and Wikipedia is not for everything that exists. Lake Station, Missouri lists a couple sources talking about the location, which you should probably address on your PROD summary. These comparisons boil down to a "but someone created this unrelated article!" argument. In practice, web content notability standards may be applied differently from geographical notability. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No evidence of existence, just an old railroad station that probably shut down YEARS ago, and I am probably the only person to know of it AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

and also i forgot to add on the author of said article makes a lot of articles on phantom settlements AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@RmationYT What is that so called place that dosent exist? shJunpei talk 19:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

BFDI has won an award; Cartoon Crave, quite a while ago. Maybe there is a new article for any of that.

Here’s the awards

https://cartooncrave.wordpress.com/cartoon-crave-awards-2021/

and there is this weirdly written article but i guess it is an article

https://www.businesstoday.in/impact-feature/story/the-animated-series-battle-for-dream-island-makes-waves-in-india-427949-2024-05-02#:~:text=Samuel%20Thornbury's%20three%20written%20episodes,Cartoon%20Crave%20Awards%20in%202021.

RmationYT (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So..

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)

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.

Sure, I want a BFDI article too, but we'll just have to wait, no matter how much we argue to fellow users. WOndering-FLowers (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

"2. Not including the many things that reference it, what things reference it?" 2007GabrielT (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant TV SHOWS and MOVIES.

1. The OSC in general is not notable.
2. As for other YouTube shows, what shows? Are they notable?

WOndering-FLowers (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@WOndering-FLowers this. shJunpei talk 19:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

German BfDI page just got semi-protected

I submitted a request for the page on the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information citing the BFDI-related vandalism. It got semi-protected indefinitely less than 24 hours later. Should this be reflected in the "Affected articles" subsection? 134.22.84.45 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Will add this to the essay shortly. λ NegativeMP1 18:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This did NOT need to be a whole essay, this could have very easily been a short page AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I doubt you would've read the essay even if it was just a single paragraph, just as you probably haven't read it even now. λ NegativeMP1 19:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@AmericanAccount704 Why are you debating this here may I ask? shJunpei talk 19:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Because I legally have my rights to. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

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."

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)