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

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]

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]

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]

nuh uh Yellow Gummy (talk) 01:50, 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]

A source assessment was made recently, and the sources listed have been agreed to pass WP:GNG. G4B-XD-3l (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of cited sources are either primary

That’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]