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

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. — 🌙E cl i ps e (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? 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) ""Comes from 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) “” Comes from 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 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 Reliable sources/Perennial sources, 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 Reliable sources. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. "Battle+for+Dream+Island" gives practically the same results as "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
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)

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 Reliable sources/Perennial sources. 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)