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
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this page, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
Why are Wikipedia editors biased against BFDI and against creating an article for this series?
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 fans, which is why it is blacklisted on Wikipedia.
Does this essay apply to other Wikimedia Foundation projects (e.g. non-English versions of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons)?
No, this essay only addresses policies and guidelines and user conduct on the English Wikipedia. However, this answer should not be interpreted to justify adding BFDI onto other Wikimedia projects without understanding and following their own policies and guidelines. Non-English versions of Wikipedia, for example, have their own notability guidelines.
The Huang twins have done tie-ins with far more famous companies who have made merchandise with them. BFDI should be notable then, right?
Even if we had the reliable sources to verify this, this wouldn't make BFDI notable. A hypothetical article on Wikipedia about the series would explain to a layperson (someone who isn't a part of the OSC) what BFDI is about. We are talking about the series, not the merchandise.
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.
The essay is about the fact that it can't have a page due to the rules. My question is if it should have a page. I thought I made that clear lol. 2007GabrielT (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that BFDI should have an article, and that no encyclopedia can be truly complete without being exhaustive. However, there cannot yet be articles on everything. MultPod (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that BFDI has virtually zero independent and coverage by news articles. It’s not about should it have a page, it’s because it’s simply too soon. TzarN64 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source in question does not extensively coverBattle for Dream Island or Jacknjellify, so the source is not a determining factor in whether the previously mentioned topics are notable. However, the source could perhaps appear in article(s) relating to recent US tariffs, although the source in question has a paywall. AlphaBeta135talk00:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this one talks about JnJ, unsure if this is a reliable source: https://www.8newsnow.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/707844321/jacknjellify-celebrates-over-16-years-of-animation-excellence-and-online-influence/ ArthurGilf0rd (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is rather a moot point considering that the term "object show(s)" is blacklisted (i.e., non-admins cannot create any pages with the title containing the term "object show"). Not only that, redirecting "object show(s)" to a Wikipedia project page like WP:BFDI would be considered a cross-namespace redirect, which is generally disallowed (with very few exceptions like About Wikipedia). AlphaBeta135talk02:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is straight up copium i mean "independent sources" what is this a political related or a animated web series and the amazing digital circus page was created BEFORE any sources were created that sounds like hypocrisy right RIGHT and if you make a page literally detecated to not make a BFDI page use that time to FIND ANY SOURCES Depotadore (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources WP:RS have you found. You can always post them here?
There are a lot of articles out there that are likely non-notable. Feel free to nominate a few for deletion if you find one in which you can't find independent sources (maybe at Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability). Wikipedia is a work in progress.
Wikipedia:Other things exist might interest you. Something happens somewhere else so this should now happen is never a good argument, in Wikipedia or in life in general. I've no idea of the history of Amazin Digital Circus, and I don't need to know as it isn't relevant to this conversation. Knitsey (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird how OSCers think popular= deserves an article, since BFDI has almost zero reliable sources on it (and the OSC in general has literally zero.) They probably don't read this essay (or don't understand Wikipedia needs citiations to factually support anything said in the article) so they just think Wikipedia really hates Object Shows Thegoofhere (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
obviously I meant on a general purpose wiki not some specialized fandom wiki, and the third link is just a wikipedia fork (which just supports my point). the internet is full of wikis but most of them aren’t of a extremely high quality like wikipedia is 2007GabrielT (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of other possibilities for things this could be about, and if it were to not be exclusively about bfdi I feel it would be a lot less controversial and yes I know the Henry stickmin collection is mentioned but that's nowhere near enough. It could be something along the lines of "why doesn't this have an article" and just be more general as almost a beginner friendly guide to editing and mention some important things like how Fandom and iMDb are unreliable and explain notability on Wikipedia better, also as much as it sucks this has caused some bias amongst editors like on Rosie O'donnell, TomSka, and Jacksfilms (also on Kevin Macleod but almost all albums and singles mentioned have no sources cited). Yes I have read the page genuinely this doesn't need to be about bfdi and it would be more productive if it wasn't. Radman the 12th (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have more general whatevers, like WP:TOOSOON, WP:BACKWARD, WP:NEXTBIGTHING, WP:NOPE etc. The value of this talk-page, though not an exactly WP-approved one, is that it seems to keep a lot of the on-WP BFDI-bickering in one place. I'm not sure "plenty others" is right, BFDI seems to be something of a league of it's own. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over my 2.5 years' experience of editing Wikipedia, I have yet to come across any other non-notable topic that people have tried so hard to get onto Wikipedia, than BFDI. On the title blacklist, a good majority of titles blacklisted for salt evasion have only one line and that's enough to stop the evasion, but BFDI alone has three lines of code there. — AP 499D25(talk)07:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the indie animated series The Amazing Digital Circus (TADC), Gooseworx, has stated that Four from Battle for Dream Island (BFDI) helped a lot to help shape one of the shows characters, Caine, therefore Battle for Dream Island should have a Wikipedia page like TADC. Jaseamations (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these statements, theres only 1 source that counts towards notability in the source assassment, and that is a partial one about a meetup related to bfdi, and one that is partial is not enough to make a page of it. If there are more reliable sources towards bfdi in the future then yeah but for now no. Animalsrule2024 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the source assessment table there is an article about the 2024 BFDI meetup. If someone were to theoretically make an article about the meetup specifically and not either of the show would that be allowed? A ummann (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
