Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia’s content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Battle for Dream Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The majority of cited sources are either primary (e.g., official project materials), pertain to the recent film or associated events, or constitute trivial mentions that do not substantiate the article title’s implied significance. Extensive prior discussion of the topic’s notability, coupled with evident off-wiki harassment concerns (a Twitter search for “BFDI Wikipedia” reveals substantial off-wiki debate), has already precipitated minor edit wars. If deletion is not warranted, the page should at minimum receive semi-protection to prevent further disruption. Authenyo (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• See this essay. 204.210.149.11 (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That essay is now in past tense due to the Deletion Review, it should NOT be used in this as a reference point shane (talk to me if you want!) 01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Past consensus at this deletion review has shown to say “unsalted”.
• I am leaning towards oppose due to the deletion review but who knows. shane (talk to me if you want!) 01:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (non fan/never watched or consumed any media on it) I have already checked 2 of the sources. It meets WP:GNG by these 2:

  Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 01:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A deletion review discussion was performed prior to the article being unsalted and created in which a supermajority of editors supported recreation. The article passes WP:GNG as there now exists significant coverage by independent and reliable sources such as: Plugged In, /Film, and The Citizen. The nominator’s assertion that all sources are primary, trivial mentions, unsubstantive, or only pertain to the film, is incorrect.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plugged In is owned by a conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, reliability currently unknown Authenyo (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m the one who noted that at the source assessment table, when discussed^[1][2] it was generally found to be reliable enough to count towards establishing notability in some form, and so I’ve mentioned it here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven’t participated in the deletion review discussion, but the /Film and Citizen articles are (in my view) two sources that count fully towards notability. The Insider article, the Comics Beat article, and the other sources push it over the notability threshold (again, in my opinion). Z E T A³ 02:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per overwhelming DRV consensus. The nomination statement contains bizarre and blatantly false claims. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Consensus at BFDI’s deletion review made it pretty clear that BFDI has enough reliable sources to warrant its own article, an opinion I also share myself.interstatefive  01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Since there was already a consensus to unsalt the article due to having notable and verifiable sources, it makes little to no sense to delete again. However, I do agree a level a protection should be required, since the topic of Battle for Dream Island having a Wikipedia article is currently a potential attractor for small edit wars and vandalism. G4B-XD-3l (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  how do you put a wiki page on semi protection? 63.226.55.118 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Up to administrators. G4B-XD-3l (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RFPP to request protection Z E T A³ 02:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like it’s already listed there Z E T A³ 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, I listed it per the BFDI talk. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• nuh uh Yellow Gummy (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Yellow Gummy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Were you canvassed to this discussion? Z E T A³ 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  no It’s all me Yellow Gummy (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, did you find this discussion from the banner on the top of the page or from a mention somewhere on another site or by another person? (or somewhere else) Z E T A³ 02:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree that the available sources do not demonstrate significant coverage or notability beyond trivial mentions and primary materials. The topic appears to lack sufficient independent, reliable sourcing for a standalone article. Flushedwtf (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The statement that the topic lacks independent, reliable sourcing is factually incorrect; see Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe majority of cited sources are either primaryThat’s just a lie, most of them except for one, are secondary. The notability of a subject is determined by the quality of reliable, secondary, significant, independent sources that do exist. Heres some reliable ones:
• Whatever off-wiki happens is irrelevant for the most part to determining notability. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: 7 sources is enough to keep this page, as per WP:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island CyborgsWM (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  most of the sources aren’t in depth, but the ones that are aid to notability. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  tbh idrc if the page gets deleted or not, i only wanted to participate in this nomination CyborgsWM (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources are primary and as mentioned above the other assessments of them are incorrect as well. Also, off-Wiki discussion has nothing to deal with something meeting WP:GNG and is thus irrelevant. While harassment off Wikipedia should never be condoned it is also irrelevant to the notability of the topic at hand. Floralfaerie (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Floralfaerie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Were you canvassed here? shane (talk to me if you want!) 01:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve been an on and off fandom Editor with occasional Wikipedia edits like half a decade ago but never felt the need to have an account until this since the notability conflict is quite interesting. Floralfaerie (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Might want to link the accounts per WP:SOCK and WP:FRESHSTART then. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FRESHSTART states the opposite of what you think it states. To be honest, much of your wiki-advice has been incorrect, consider contributing in other ways. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed G4B-XD-3l (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This YouTube series is notable, 7 sources is enough to keep this page. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only 2 of the sources are considered reliable by Wikipedia, however that is sufficient to justify namespace G4B-XD-3l (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The source [1] [2] is reliabe by Wikipedia. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the consensus at the deletion review is that notability has been established. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see WP:YESBFDI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As much as your essay is well put in itself, I don’t think citing a humorous essay would give much merit to the discussion. Good point though G4B-XD-3l (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The essay, even though it is humorous, relies on the consensus established at the deletion review. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s humourous in some ways, and not in others. It would probably be better to tag the humor parts specifically. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s very short, so I don’t think that would work. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are inline humor tags {{Humor note}} Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• QUESTION am I allowed to speedy close this even though I commented on this deletion discussion shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, see WP:BADNAC #4. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i havent voted though shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  EditorShane3456, You voted. You said I am leaning towards oppose due to the deletion review but who knows. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to additionally clarify that participation without a vote can also be enough. As stated at WP:NACD, non-admin closers are also subject to the conditions of WP:UNINVOLVED. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This (obviously) also applies to admins, by the way Z E T A³ 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Expanding on this, this subject is contentious. I would not be surprised if a WP:ARBCOM case came of it at some point. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking about it, but don’t see much consensus to speedy close and such a decision is best left up to admins. Z E T A³ 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Only thing that could cause a speedy closure at this point would likely be WP:SNOW, and I don’t think we are quite at that point. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s snow if the unsalt is considered imo. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We do need consensus for that, IIRC Z E T A³ 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +2 shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a difference, I believe at least, between it being unsalted and it surviving AFD. One is largely based on consensus, one is an admin’s choice to do. They can be similar, but they are not entirely the same thing. I don’t particularly see the harm in letting this AFD run its course; in fact, this discussion could firmly assert BFDI’s notability. At the very least, waiting a few days isn’t a big deal, and if there is enough consensus that has been developed to cause a snow closure, then it can be closed then. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I do think that one is an admin’s choice to do is a bit misleading, as with the way this discussion is going it’s unlikely that a single admin’s deletion will go unnoticed or uncontested. Z E T A³ 02:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I suppose I should clarify; I meant to say that I believe deletion reviews and AFDs, as parts of different processes, are subject to differing levels and types of consensus. While they can correlate and correspond to each other, they are different enough to where consensus in one doesn’t necessarily mean consensus in another. I do agree that currently consensus in this discussion seems to be leaning towards keep, but that could theoretically change within the coming days, which is why AFDs go for as long as they do, rather than just taking place within the time-span of an hour. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant it as in considering it was unsalted and its majority keep with WP:GNG being the highest reason to keep… Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ehh this could help affirm its notability regardless of what happened at the deletion review. Z E T A³ 02:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not arguing; In fact I absolutely agree w/ that. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the claims shown on this nomination are weirdly false, two sources meet WP:GNG and it has been allowed by general consensus to unsalt the draft. And the “off-wiki” claims, albeit being heavily discouraged, are completely irrelevant in notability for the sources and should not be a reason for deletion.

Nah1925 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per the previously discussion at DRV and the source assessment table. Times have changed, we’ll need something else to use as a “popularity does not equal notability” example. Lovelyfurball (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Shameless self-promotion) I wrote an essay saying basically the exact same thing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like all the other people said already; this has a number of reliable sources that can be used for this article. This article was already in an AFD and the majority was Keep and Un-salt. Seven sources that are in the criteria for being a source for the article is enough for WP:GNG; the information given here is complete bull. 2603:6011:7A00:C5E0:21C9:ABD4:FA2F:F3A4 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — 2603:6011:7A00:C5E0:21C9:ABD4:FA2F:F3A4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

  Not sure what you mean by previous AfD? Do you mean the deletion review? Z E T A³ 03:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the DRV and the source assessment. The Canadian Askew (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are two sources which are fully independent and are reliable/sigcov (as in: no interviews with the creators): the one by /film and the one by pluggedin (which has been considered “marginally reliable” but is still in use). There are two additional sources which are reliable and although they contain interviews with the show creators, it has been argued that the non-interview coverage is significant enough. There are also two sources which give partial coverage of a specific event about the show (Bubbleblather and Business Insider). Ignoring the primary sources (which are ornamental to the article, as you can see the draft version was essentially all independent sources), these sources allow you to understand a good deal about the show and write a fleshed out article, which leads me to think it has overall received significant coverage. ALittleClass (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It got secondary sources fair and square. Consider your deletion attempt thwarted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvenWPedia (talk • contribs) 03:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — AvenWPedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Probs canvassed from a guy named “michael” tweeting about this deletion discussion shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be Michael Huang (@fernozzle), one of the co-creators. I can’t seem to find a link to the tweet though. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Twitter hides some posts for logged-out users. No idea why. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  [4] this is his post where he says “THANK YOU for BFDI on @Wikipedia”. Katzrockso (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you talking Michael like he’s some random guy, he’s literally the co-creator of BFDI Thegoofhere (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per WP:DENY and WP:IAR, the attempts to shoehorn this into the encyclopedia over the years have reached LTA levels. Kinopiko ^talk 03:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But it has significant, sustained coverage now. It meets WP:GNG. This is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That was true when there were basically zero suitable sources, but not anymore. I don’t even like BFDI that much personally, but it appears to have finally met WP:GNG. 203.211.73.140 (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kinopiko, What do you mean when you cite IAR? Do you suggest that we delete the article despite the subject being notable? Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IAR only applies when it helps wp, deleting it atp really doesn’t help due to notibility never going away. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 06:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per deletion review, asking for deletion would be what is what is known as asking the other parent, no new significant information has been raised. I would support a page protection, however. Coleisforeditor (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a WP:RPPI atm Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 03:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove: These sources are too trivial. They just briefly state something about the web series. Ayopos (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Ayopos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment There is likely significant canvassing from members of the r/BattleForDreamIsland subreddit, as evidenced by this post. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per deletion review and previous discussion leading to its unsalting. The re-creation of this article was already discussed and not a decision made without careful consideration by many Wikipedians. Consensus has already been made to create and keep this article and this nomination is a mere WP:OTHERPARENT. Sparkysilverfish (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (NOTE: I have not interacted with or engage in the BFDI community, this comes from a outsider looking in) as per it having enough coverage outside the community, I think it’s about time it gets a article, especially since (from what I’ve seen) it has a decent selection of 2nd party sources, as per the guidelines (and other Wikipedians) I feel that this article should be kept.
  I say it should be kept given that prior criteria, as well as general influence on internet culture as a whole being somewhat significant (if niche).DigiSpaceProductions (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Almost all of the sources are independent and 2 of them meet WP:GNG. QA995 (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — QA995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per the recent deletion review and source assessment. It is true that the disruption regarding this subject prior to reliable sources being published exceeded LTA levels, but it now meets WP:GNG. So keep. 203.211.73.140 (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Change to Speedy Keep per DRV consensus 203.211.73.140 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Contains enough sources and outside coverage that should be satisfactory enough for Wikipedia article standards. BFDI and the “Object Show” genre have continued to increase in popularity over the years, so it’s inevitable that BFDI would get an article on Wikipedia, especially now that it had a movie theater screening, multiple conventions and has been mentioned in some filmography lists here on Wikipedia, such as Tomska. At this point, continuing to disallow BFDI from having an article on Wikipedia seems more like moving the goal post of requirements for an article further and further, despite there being thousands of articles on Wikipedia that aren’t notable or site reliable sources. It feels targeted out of spite at this point, rather than it being genuine and in good faith for Wikipedia.
  Do also consider that other sites that talk about BFDI, such as the ones mentions in the conclusion section of WP:BFDI, are filled with ads that obstruct information and contain many trackers, causing a good chunk of viewers to quickly leave the site before even reading the article (especially Fandom). Since Wikipedia is ad-free, those issues are avoided, plus potential added protection against vandalism and excessive information, issues those previously mentioned sites could also contain.
  Instead of discussion about deletion, I say focus should instead be focused on what information the article should and shouldn’t have. BFDI doesn’t need a whole episode list with plot summaries or go over every character/contestant in the series. ILC YT (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — ILC YT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I agree.

  FYI for future people, if you make it of this quality it will most likely be considered per WP:CONSENUS Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 05:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IPOfAFlower, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:EVERYTHING argument, no? If other articles have issues, the solution isn’t to add more articles with issues, its to get rid of the articles that have issues or improve them. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 05:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I interpreted it as inclusionism + SOFIXIT

  The article should really be protected to prevent the fancruft that didn’t exist from what I’ve read during the drafting stage. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 05:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This makes a lot of non-policy arguments: other sites having ads has no bearing on anything, mentions on other Wikipedia articles does nothing for notability, mentioning that other articles exist with worse sourcing is classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

  People commenting should focus on if WP:GNG is met, and provide justification for their answer. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  fyi there is also a WP:RED argument in there via tom skia with our interpretation. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 05:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You probably cited cited the wrong acronym. WP:RED redirects to Wikipedia:Red link. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments in recent DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_October_25#Battle_for_Dream_Island_(closed). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my analysis of the sources:

Sources 1, 2, and 4 establish general notability.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Writing a WP:TLDR for this. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 06:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IPOfAFlower, I don’t see why that is necessary, and it isn’t something you should do in an AFD discussion (or any discussion built on consensus). TLDR is good for individual points, not for entire discussions. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  bit long so wanted to write down what the conscious is (also kinda a good way for me to see what the current consensus is) Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 06:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Determining consensus is a task for an uninvolved closer, not participants. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If its for canvassed individuals, I don’t think its necessary for them; they aren’t here in volume, and frankly they will probably ignore any points you make, as frequently happens with the banner indicating this process isn’t a vote. From what I have seen, the fans are content with the fact that most people are !voting keep currently, which is why they aren’t coming here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 06:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ll withdraw if its not worth it tho, no hard feelings. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 06:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Please do not close this deletion discussion early, even if snow is reported in the Arctic. This topic has been sufficiently controversial and disruptive that a full week’s discussion would be a good idea to establish consensus beyond all doubt. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There already has been a near-animous consensus with 20+ participants at DRV which ran for a week. This discussion has 25+ participants (albeit with some overlaps with DRV), and there is too an extremely strong consensus for inclusion, with there being no strong argument made in favor of deletion. All doubts have been cleared in my view, and any more is a waste of community time, especially since this AfD is facing significant disruption. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All that keeping this AfD open will do is fuel the flames of these fans who have already latched onto the deletion template. Katzrockso (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I really don’t think the sources are reliable enough for this webseries. Tomafahe (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, per others and the preceding DRV. I personally would’ve liked more extensive coverage (I believe in its current state this would’ve worked better as a subsection, maybe to an article about the Huang brothers?), but existing coverage appears to have been established as fulfilling WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV in the DRV. ArkHyena (she/they) 07:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Keep per the GNG-passing sources described above, which are enough for the topic to be notable per the consensus at the deletion review. Delete !votes need to discuss why other editors and DRV erred in finding these sources were sufficient for notability under the WP:GNG. I have never heard of this show outside of Wikipedia so I don’t know why it specifically garners such fervor, but people are indeed passionate about their interests. Katzrockso (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (nb. I am the admin who recreated this page) – Per everything already said on this topic. Particularly, this is now a GNG pass due to having multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. The Citizen article and the /Film article are clearly secondary coverage, since they essentially analyse the show rather than merely report things they saw. These outlets are also a pass for WP:NEWSORG as they have published editorial policies and employ editorial teams.

I’ll also take this discussion happening as a sign that I was right about there being no point in having a DRV discussion. We might as well have simply skipped the DELREV discussion and jumped straight to the AFD.FOARP (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the DRV was useful, a lot of editors are referring to in on this page. But moot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]