Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25: Difference between revisions

Battle for Dream Island (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This topic is listed at WP:DEEPER. However, since the last DRV in August 2024, new sources about the web series have appeared:

• “‘BFDI’: Online series continues to soar“, from The Citizen, 19 June 2025
• “jacknjellify“, from Plugged In, 22 August 2025
• “Michael Huang hopes theatrical release will help Battle for Dream Island expand its huge YouTube audience“, from Comics Beat, October 21, 2025
• “What Are Object Shows And Why Is Gen-Alpha Obsessed With Them?“, from /Film, October 23, 2025

These sources have been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? and added to Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island as potential contenders for reliable independent significant coverage of the series. They are currently cited on a draft article, Draft:Battle for Dream Island. The Comics Beat source is being discussed here (permalink), and there seems to be some agreement that its coverage is partially significant given its interview nature, but after the release of the /Film source, editors have called for a new DRV in the essay talk page.

The page is currently salted and in the title blacklist; the salting administrator has indicated here (permalink) to start a DRV. So, as per WP:DRVPURPOSE #5, I’m requesting a review of these sources to determine this topic’s notability. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsalt and allow recreation as one of the authors of the BFDI essay. The draft contains multiple independent, reliable sources, and the fact that a non-stub draft can be derived from the cited sources indicates significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I mean Allow recreation, sources are good enough in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow recreation (as the preferred close of this Deletion Review). —Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt And remove from DEEPER, per above. References available appear to get the subject above the GNG threshold. Frank Anchor 16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. The topic was not wiki-notable but it is it wiki-notable now. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies recreating the article. Technical obstacles to creation should be removed.—Alalch E. 16:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I haven’t looked into notability, so this can still possibly be taken to AfD, but enough time has passed since the disruption caused by supporters that this should be treated no differently from any other article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation: There now exists adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – On first review, I am inclined to agree that we should allow recreation. I will review again more carefully. In view of the long history of disruption, we should avoid an early closure, even if ice crystals (which are objects) are showing up as precipitation in both the Arctic and the Antarctic regions in October. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For readers of a less WP-nerdy disposition, Robert is alluding to WP:SNOW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and allow recreation: by a liberal estimate, this article has 4 sources which all are reliable, independent and have significant coverage and two sources which are reliable & independent, but gives restricted coverage about a specific meetup or theater screening from the show. Now, if you want to be restrictive, you could argue that one of the source is only “minimally reliable” (PluggedIn), or that two of the sources lack independence because they contain interviews with creators of the show, but the fact that there is a reasonable view for notability shows that trying to create another article wouldn’t be trolling or in violation of guidelines. ALittleClass (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and Allow Recreation by appellant. I have reviewed the sources and have created a source table that is the same as those sometimes used in AFD discussions.

It would be nice if {{source assess table}} had a Secondary column. An organization-specific version has it, but not the regular source assessment table. I wonder why not. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: You listed the cinema.usc.edu source twice. Is its coverage probably significant or definitely significant? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://cinema.usc.edu/alumni/alumnispotlight/view.cfm?id=72509 isn’t reliable or significant, neither is BubbleBlabber Thegoofhere (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the usc is definitely not SIGCOV for the article under discussion, and bubbleblabber doesn’t seem obviously reliable to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Curious as to where you got the “review of some episodes” remark for Bubbleblabber from, as the article is very brief and only quickly summarises a specific detail from the ending of TPOT 19. Not sure of its reliability but its significance I would put as a straight “no”. Jurta ^talk/_contribs 15:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island was in existence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – First, we only need to argue about the specific values in the source assessment table at AFD. At DRV, I think that we have established that we can have a reasonable discussion of a source assessment table at AFD. Second, we will only need two or three rows that are checked across in order to pass AFD. Third, I have collapsed the previous table and am offering a new table below which I will also put on the talk page of the draft, so that it will be available at AFD. Fourth, there are two different tools for generating a source assessment table, the Excel spreadsheet to wikitable tool, and the template. Some editors use one, and some use the other. I use an Excel spreadsheet and the Excel to wikitable converter. Some of the comments seem to be oriented toward the template. I plan to continue to use the Excel to wikitable tool. Here is a revised table.

The point that I think I have made, and that I think that we agree on, is that the sources are good enough that they can be argued about at AFD. Our responsibility at DRV is to unsalt the title and to allow the draft to be reviewed. After six more days of arguing about the sources, we can close this discussion by unsalting the title and removing it from DEEPER. And thanks to User:ObserveOwl for finding a mixture of reasonable sources.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​which I will also put on the talk page of the draft – I don’t see a reason to do this. There exists, and has existed, a more comprehensive and collaboratively made source assessment table at Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island. If you’d like to add your own assessment at a hypothetical AfD then it makes the most sense to wait for said AfD. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This, BTW, was why I think DRV wasn’t necessary in this case. We’re basically pre-AFDing an article that won’t necessarily be AFD’d, but which if it is AFD’d, this discussion won’t have really decided much about. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt and allow recreation. The subject has met WP:GNG.

JudeHalley (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]