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 organize 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.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
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]
AmericanAccount704: 1. "award-winning" is just a marketing ploy. Awards like the Nobel Prize, Oscars/Academy Awards, Grammys, Tonys, etc. are well-known because they are presented by reputable organizations. The "award" that BFDI received was from one of those amateur news accounts on social media (e.g. Pop Crave) run by a person who has no experience. 2. The Scholastic book was written by the production team, which does not contribute to BFDI's notability. 3. Just because people who have articles were featured on BFDI does not automatically mean it's notable; notability is not inherited. 4. A random jazz band can do a worldwide tour and sell merchandise and not get significant coverage by any reliable sources. 5. There is no "No BFDI/II" policy on Wikipedia. 6. The reason why Scott The Woz and Chuggaconroy have articles is because they are notable. We have credible sources covering them in significant detail. BFDI doesn't have that. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! But the article only mentions BFDI once, elaborates a bit on the Q&A event, and moves on with other events unrelated to the series, so it doesn't look like significant coverage. It could perhaps be used a bit on the BFDI article if it ever gets notable, but not much more than that. ObserveOwl (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the snippet I could see on the article, Business Insider did have a brief introduction into what BFDI is, particularly who made it, and the QNA event is directly about BFDI as well (as seen in the front page image), so I don't think it's just a mere mention of BFDI, so to say. HomerN2763 (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The QNA event was also used as an example to introduce the main topic of the article, unlike
Right - but it should be more in-depth about the series than a single sentence only stating its creators. This is for the Wikipedia article to have potential to expand beyond a very short stub. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a lot with that. However, I think you are still downplaying the original research done by the author (Amanda Perelli).
I also disagree with the idea that the article "only mentions BFDI once" (when it is already mentioned twice in the header photo and description, even before the article begins).
1. The reporter physically attended the event, as part of writing this article.
How do we know this?
The headline photo chosen to lead the article (reading "BFDI & INANIMATE INSANITY TOUR 2024") was the only 1 of 3 photos to be taken by Perelli herself — see the photo credits.
This is a new, unique photo. Do you think a senior reporter making a dedicated trip out of an event (on company time) is not already making an intentional choice to center it?
2. New, original testimony from co-creator Cary Huang, collected by the reporter.
When it says "'I just love the idea of turning the microphone around and having the audience make the majority of the sound,' Cary Huang said."
This is also new. No other source is cited here: just want to acknowledge Perelli again presenting information we would not have otherwise seen (these are some of Cary's first words in a reliable publication).
3. A "brief introduction" that is still multiple paragraphs
True, this section is not book-length, but 7 sentences and the one photo dedicated to the article are absolutely more than the "trivial mention" idea that your linked definition describes.
4. One of 3 covered is still coverage
When you read the article, you notice it is structured in thirds:
BFDI animators,
"Celebrity Memoir Book Club" comedians,
and "Snapback Agency" basketball.
It's really only 3 subjects. While you write that the article "moves on with other events unrelated to the series", it's hard to interpret that in good faith when the same definition you link says that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" to be significant coverage anyway (let alone the first of 3).
Thanks for getting into detail about the full article, I could not have full access to Business Insider (not that I'm looking to pay for their subscription anyway) HomerN2763 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photo caption just repeats what the article says, so I didn't consider it a new mention with more information.
1. Okay, but how does it change the depth of coverage if they were there? An image doesn't change this either, it's probably copyrighted anyway so the Wikipedia article won't likely use it.
2. Cool, but what does that contribute to an understanding of BFDI? He likes to interact with the public... alright. That's also non-independent material.
3. The remaining sentences are about the event, while an article about BFDI should focus on, well, the series. It does not need to be book-length, just a few paragraphs about the series.
4. That's true, "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", but I didn't say otherwise - I only said that it doesn't have much usable coverage beyond the event. If the article had like three or four decently sized paragraphs for further context behind the event - about BFDI itself -, even if it didn't take the whole article, it could constitute significant coverage. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ObserveOwl, it is a first mention of BFDI in any reliable source. It is a significant step, though not yet sufficient, in writing an article about BFDI. Catalk to me!01:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have been following this situation for the better portion of a year, and a few things should be answered .
1. if battle for dream island got reliable sources on something that didn’t exactly aim for the show itself, but something expressly bfdi (like for example the live tour/the scholastic guide book), would it mean that the thing itself still be rejected as its not significant coverage? (of the show), or would the thing itself be able to get a wikipedia article only about itself.
1b. and if it would be rejected, does that mean that bfdi is required to have its own article (for the show) for there to be any articles relating to bfdi?
2. what about object shows? (bfdi’s main example) like itft, inanimate insanity, or obsolete battle show, these shows take (both full/partial) inspiration from bfdi, but most are unrelated, but this is not talking about a single confined object show, it’s about the whole community as a thing, but how could you even make an article (with sources), on such a wide concept, as the osc?
2b. what about any singular object show?, like what if lots of sources made news coverage on any particular object show, would it need to conform to its unique identity as an object show?, or would it only be classified as a webshow? (if both a bfdi and osc article didn’t exist)
[cw roblox mention]
3. what about find the markers? the original game creator was the one to come up with marker, so he has the ownership of the character, so he made a game on roblox that wasn’t directly tied to bfdi or anything other than the character marker, this game is popular with alot of people (bfdi fans and non bfdi fans alike) and could have it’s own article (with sources), does that mean you couldn’t mention bfdi along with this article? (as find the markers’ development didn’t have direct influence from bfdi, so mentions of bfdi aren’t needed)
[roblox mention over]
4. how many sources do we need on bfdi?, what is the number of reliable sources needed until bfdi is notable?, because does wikipedia allow any wikipedia page aslong as it has atleast 1 source? or does it need lots?
5. do we exactly need all mentions of bfdi in regular known pages deleted?, as its blacklisted (for now), because there’s lots of places where bfdi could be used as a passing mention, but what if the (wikipedia) article is based on an news article that has only a slight mention of bfdi in it?
(heh 5b)
5b. how about general places that don’t need bfdi references?, but the topic in question mentions it to the point where it is applicable to the article, but technically you could reference bfdi in it as it was in article that was a reliable source?
1. That would depend on how much context on BFDI the source provides. The article about BFDI would be pretty confusing to read without information about itself.
1b. Technically not, but that would perhaps be for an exceptional case in which something from BFDI has made some impact outside the OSC.
2. By waiting for reliable, independent and in-depth sources the article would base upon, I suppose. As for the OSC, there are some articles about specific fandoms, so an article about the OSC could base its structure on some of them.
2b. Depends on how reliable coverage describes it.
3. It would again require reliable coverage, and of course it can mention BFDI when relevant and noted by sources.
4. The general notability guideline mentions "sources" in plural, but the reliability and depth of the sources count more than the quantity. The practical minimum could be two sources if they are very in-depth, or three moderately in-depth ones; it should be evaluated case-by-case.
5. Would depend on the context and relevance to the article in question.
You should exlplain why SML has no wikipedia page, they have a retail merch store in Pensacola, is 10x bigger than BFDI, and appeared on Good Morning America and The Sun, albeit for bad reasons, Jeffy alone could have a Wikipedia page, maybe even Jeffy's Tantrum could have a wikipedia since that is what started the whole controversy (please make it a shorter essay unlike the anti-BFDI page essay) AmericanAccount704 (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try searching for sources talking about SML in more detail that weren't mentioned in the deletion discussion, though. Try asking someone experienced with notability about them, and then open a deletion review if appropriate. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something I have never managed to understand is how Battle For Dream Island doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, and yet Epic Rap Battles of History does. What does ERB have that BFDI doesn’t? I’d argue that BFDI has more, what with merchandise, an active fan base of all ages, countless series inspired by it and a lot more! 86.13.247.51 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
