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

Shortcut
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and also WP:FORPETESSAKE. asilvering (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island

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)

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)
  • 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)
    Comment: For anyone confused about the SlashFilm link, it is the incorrect one. The BFDI one is this:
    https://www.slashfilm.com/2004744/object-shows-gen-alpha-obsession-explained/ TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 13:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
    Plugged In is owned by a conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, reliability currently unknown Authenyo (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
    Disregard "bizarre and blatantly false ", nomination statement were true at the time of nomination. Ca talk to me! 15:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    how do you put a wiki page on semi protection? 63.226.55.118 (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Up to administrators. G4B-XD-3l (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    WP:RFPP to request protection Z E T A3 02:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Looks like it's already listed there Z E T A3 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yep, I listed it per the BFDI talk. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with this Benjistyles19 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Benjistyles19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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.
    Were you canvassed to this discussion? Z E T A3 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    no It's all me Yellow Gummy (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • Keep
    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)
  • 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)
    most of the sources aren't in depth, but the ones that are aid to notability. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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.
    Were you canvassed here? shane (talk to me if you want!) 01:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    • ips if possible oops
    Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    Agreed G4B-XD-3l (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep This YouTube series is notable, 7 sources is enough to keep this page. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    The source is reliabe by Wikipedia. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, the consensus at the deletion review is that notability has been established. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, see WP:YESBFDI. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    The essay, even though it is humorous, relies on the consensus established at the deletion review. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    It's very short, so I don't think that would work. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    There are inline humor tags {{Humor note}} Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would suggest looking at the the subject's assessment page. The current revision shows two sources that pass WP:GNG. JudeHalley (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close, this has been discussed at length and is the reason of this article's existence. Z E T A3 02:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    While this has been discussed in WP:BFDI, the essay was written from quite a while ago. Recent events, such as AMC theater screenings, have proved the show and things adjacent to not just be of an obscure coterie, but rather something with a large impact on indie animation as a whole. My point is that BFDI has surged in popularity and domain since the essay was written, and the extent to which it satisfies WP:N has also thus changed. Nnoxie0 (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry I was trying to reply to someone else Nnoxie0 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
    No, see WP:BADNAC #4. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    i havent voted though shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    This (obviously) also applies to admins, by the way Z E T A3 02:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    It's snow if the unsalt is considered imo. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    We do need consensus for that, IIRC Z E T A3 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    +2 shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    Not arguing; In fact I absolutely agree w/ that. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 02:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    (Shameless self-promotion) I wrote an essay saying basically the exact same thing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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.
    Not sure what you mean by previous AfD? Do you mean the deletion review? Z E T A3 03:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the DRV and the source assessment. The Canadian Askew (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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.
    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)
    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)
    Twitter hides some posts for logged-out users. No idea why. Ca talk to me! 07:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    this is his post where he says "THANK YOU for BFDI on @Wikipedia". Katzrockso (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Kind of him to say so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    @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)
    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)
  • 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)
    There is a WP:RPPI atm Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 03:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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.
  • 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)
    Change to Speedy Keep per DRV consensus 203.211.73.140 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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.
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    You probably cited cited the wrong acronym. WP:RED redirects to Wikipedia:Red link. Ca talk to me! 06:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

  • Comment: Writing a WP:TLDR for this. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 06:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    Determining consensus is a task for an uninvolved closer, not participants. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    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)
    I'll withdraw if its not worth it tho, no hard feelings. Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 06:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    Tend to agree: this should be SNOW-kept ASAP. That is precedent enough. FOARP (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    On the contrary we should just semi this to shut them out. "But the rabble won't like it" has never been a good reason to do anything. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I really don't think the sources are reliable enough for this webseries. Tomafahe (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Can you explain why? Or is this out of pure bias. ConeKota (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've looked at the sources and they seem to be primarily user-generated content. Tomafahe (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I'm genuinely confused, there are currently seven sources used in the article, and none of them are user generated. What have I missed?​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I stand by my opinion. Tomafahe (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I don’t happen to see any reasons why you believe such, so unless my page is weird and I don’t see any, I feel like you’re just going off of WP:IDL here Coolman1151 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I’m probably wrong here, but that’s my thoughts Coolman1151 (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I do believe if you were to prove they were User-Generated it would be able to sway discussion. It shouldn't be a matter of opinion but more provable fact. Floralfaerie (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • (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)
  • 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)
And I think the DRV was useful (as well as proper procedure for this mega-salted thing), a lot of editors are referring to it on this page. But moot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep very clearly meets WP:GNG Skyshiftertalk 08:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and Salt. Let's forget about this shit for good. --62.165.248.148 (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — 62.165.248.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    WP:IDL Doesn’t allow you to say “I don’t like this” in a article deletion. You have to give evidence on why it should be deleted. I also saw that you were a troll. the bfdi guy… not really it’s actually raveCrowny (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — RaveCrowny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    LMAO Skyshiftertalk 12:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Not a compelling argument Z E T A3 12:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    “I hate this page!” ahh response IndoMaja (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    frrrrr delete dis Paige!11111! Danubeball (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    real Z E T A3 16:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    "This page and it should vanish off Wikipedia as a whole because 62.165.248.148 said so" Nah1925 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, if an admin de-salted this page, with a thorough source table, I don't see why this has to be deleted. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha jekyllthefabulous (speak, or you shall die) 08:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep because the sources look to meet GNG to me, and there's been no challenging of anything raised at the deletion reviewUltraodan (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per DRV consensus. –GM 08:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable topic under WP:NWEB, because there are multiple independent reliable sources containing significant coverage, and the coverage is WP:WEBCRIT-grade because it is not trivial coverage, i.e., not a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, not newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, not content descriptions in directories or online stores, etc. These sources are listed in Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island.—Alalch E. 08:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, per consensus at deletion review, source assessment, and other prior discussion, which points out that enough sources qualify for WP:GNG. This just seems unnecessary. LVDP01 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources on the deletion review, which go beyond a mere quick mention, especially The Citizen and /Film. I recommend not looking up whatever the hell Twitter is saying, as it doesn't help determine notability, but sure, this can be edit protected. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources now available for this to be a clear WP:GNG pass. I agree with ObserveOwl in that whatever is being said on Twitter has no impact on whether an article should stay, but that some level of protection would be preferred. Jurta talk/contribs 09:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Done. It will be keeped. TheRealCarf (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — TheRealCarf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep and a moratorium on deletion nominations for this article: this has already been extensively discussed and the nominator brings no new points of objection. Perhaps one month of moratorium will be enough. ―Howard • 🌽33 10:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, there already was a deletion review that disproves these claims, this is clearly just biased. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 11:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep since BFDI now passes for WP:GNG and we should try to edit protect it from vandalism. There are at least enough reliable sources that the article can use. DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Attempting to overturn source suitability consensus by DRV without new strong arguments. Also editwars can be managed in the normal way.Techie3 (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep -Coughs in Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Speedy keep This argument for the article is not only false because most of the sources (like The Citizen and Plugged In) go in depth about BFDI, while some only talk about TPOT 20 or the meetups and plushies they have done in the past 2 years and 6 years. This has been in an WP:AFD and was later kept up for recreation. I think the most that we could do is add an additional protection against some rabid fans in the OSC and people who just want to ruin and create an edit war because of their dislike of the show. the bfdi guy… not really it’s actually raveCrowny (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — RaveCrowny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
also the fact that it already passes WP:GNG the bfdi guy… not really it’s actually raveCrowny (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)— RaveCrowny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. I don't get this discussion, there's consensus for the article being a thing, and now the nom is asking for consesus for it not being a thing? Sure consensus can change, but surely not this quickly. To quote this discussion, "There is not a single shred of reason behind this AfD and I find it both absurd and laughable that it has been pushed through." Jamo! - speak to me - what i've done by linkin park 14:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep (whether it be procedural or per WP:SNOW) and moratorium on deletion discussions for at least one month. Coming from someone who does not care for BFDI otherwise (and knows nobody who has heard of the series), the fact that this title was unsalted at all may as well be equivalent to an administrator-endorsed successful AfC. Immediately sending this to AfD is borderline WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 14:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep per source analysis. I don't think it's fair to the AfD creator to just say it's an IDONTLIKEIT nom- not everyone is in the loop on discussions regarding the subject. I have zero clue what this show even is, but the two notable sources give this show enough ground to stay in article space. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Just a couple things I wanted to say, the "primary" claim is not true because at time of AfD, some person really cared about them being called "HTwins" so there was some edit war about that. Most of the consensus is that it passes WP:GNG because of 2 articles. Reading the Plugged In article, you can find really weird lines like about gay people???? and seems to be more of a warning for conservative Christian parents than a normal article
"It should be noted that, while we never saw overt LGBT content in the videos themselves, the channel has posted support for such things within its community posts. Videos do often showcase fan submissions of object characters, some of which are labeled as gay or transgender. Additionally, the channel’s fandom page indicates that the creators identify a few of the characters as “non-binary,” though we were not officially able to confirm those statements from the creators. Still, one character said something that caused fans to speculate that the object was transgender: “When I like being something, it’s because I got to decide it for myself, like my periwinkality, and my girlness.”"
"Outside of the videos themselves, parents should note that the channel occasionally makes community posts supporting the LGBT community—and its fanbase frequently speculates about the inanimate objects’ affiliations.
Most videos here are relatively tame, but these content concerns may make the channel too much for some parents."
the SlashFilm and The Citizen articles seem to be fine, i dont know much about WP:GNG it does say "there's no fixed number of sources" so this may be horribly wrong (ive only really worked with music biographies), but 2 basic "what is this object show thingy" articles isnt enough
most of the people saying keep have good points, but i dont think this discussion should be immediately "speedy close now now!!!" and should run its course Authenyo (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
im open to all points of views please dont be mean to me:) Authenyo (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
also in the plugged in article theres this note saying "Note: jacknjellify was requested by a user of Plugged In. Do you have a YouTube channel you’d like us to review? Submit your request by sending it to letters@pluggedin.com, or contact us via Facebook or Instagram so we can check it out!", probably doesnt fall under WP:UGC but interesting to look at Authenyo (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Just delete the page no one cares about THAT adult cartoon 2001:5B0:46C8:2F28:973B:86D:A00D:7613 (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — 2001:5B0:46C8:2F28:973B:86D:A00D:7613 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2001:5B0:46C8:2F28:973B:86D:A00D:7613 (UTC).
im not doing this out of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT Authenyo (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
"nobody cares" there is an entire community shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the Plugged In source should be gradually phased out with other sources as they become available, but a user requesting a source to review something does not constitute WP:UGC. Jurta talk/contribs 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah it's weird, but as long as we don't use any information about LGBTQ topics from that source, we're fine. It still has coverage on the series outside of that. We can try relying on sources that are more reliable when possible, though. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand. If "the "primary" claim is not true", why did you write it in your OP? And if you don't know much about WP:GNG, why are you starting afd:s? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
because at the time there were primary sources because of, as mentioned, edit wars Authenyo (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Then I believe this should have instead been a request for protection. Floralfaerie (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't know what's going on, but I think we should keep it as this was a very requested article and it wouldn't be right to go back to square one, so we should keep it. — WearegoingtokeepBFDI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC). — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that WearegoingtokeepBFDI (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
    least obvious canvassed account Authenyo (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think you are canvassed. Nah1925 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Obviously canvassed, based on the username. I say this as someone who believes the article should be kept. Beach ball (OSC) (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per deletion review. Meets GNG pretty narrowly Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
    Also the nomination does not address sourcing issues, any number of sources can be primary but enough are not. And semi-protection as an alternative to deletion hurts the credibility of the nom Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep, but temporarily semi-protect for 14 days.
  • As of now, the listed sources are mostly secondary.
  • Non-sponsored and non-UGC articles dedicated to the channel or show are not "trivial mentions".
  • Deleting the article is not the appropriate response to WP:OWH; the Arbitration Committee and emergency response team are options if one needs Wikipedia-facing support. Getting in touch with law enforcement is also an appropriate option.
  • Considering the copyright violations and edit wars to this newly created, yet highly anticipated article, I believe semi-protecting the article for 14 days is the best option. Most of the accounts that have been engaging with this are brand new or IP users.
Christian Toney 16:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CON that the article meets WP:GNG Beach ball (OSC) (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep!!
I’m not apart of the BFDI fandom, but I do see it alot as an Inanimate Insanity fanatic. These fans have been begging for years to have a wiki page on this show. And after 7 hours you want to delete it? This is ridiculous. (Personal attack removed) 76.111.50.159 (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — 76.111.50.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Considering how many people have asked for a Battle for Dream Island article and that there are now enough good sources to prove it's notable, I think it should definitely be kept. It does meet WP:GNG Owlbirds03 (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — Owlbirds03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy Keep By far one of the most popular indie animation show on the internet, and personally, the sources don't seem too problematic for a deletion. Hoguert (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep, the series itself kicked off an entire genre of YouTube content, and has been influential on youtube as a whole, i dont see why this is such a contraversial subject 8D1 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep, meets WP:GNG as previously discussed. Lynch44 16:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Keep, and semi-protect. BFDI narrowly meets the GNG, and semi-protecting would help keep edit wars to a minimum. ScalarKnight (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
KEEP: It’s earned this. It premiered in multiple theaters, started its own animation genre, and has been a source of inspiration for some creators. Cain from Digital Circus was heavily inspired by Four from BFDI and gave Cain his sarcastic and funny sense of humor like Four. Add on it premiere in AMC theaters and how it’s got all the requirments for a Wikipedia article and you see why many will fight to keep this page up. SmashKid15 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC) — SmashKid15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Please place new votes or comments at the bottom of the page, not above the "Extended content". I had to reorder some stuff because of comments placed up there. Z E T A3 17:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have semi-protected the page due to off-wiki canvassing. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 17:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.