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 delete and salt. WP:SNOW. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Battle for Dream Island

Battle for Dream Island (  | 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)

Insufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. None of the sources cited in the article appear to constitute sufficient coverage for notability and I cannot find such sources after doing a search either. Cary Huang might be notable, though I'm not sure, but I doubt that this series is. Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Elli ( talk | contribs) 06:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of this show in independent, reliable sources. Current sources are either primary or unreliable, and vast swaths of the text is unreferenced, which fails the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Cullen328; I too can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 10:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, best I could find was a passing mention in the caption of an image in this forbes article, which wouldn't even count as WP:SIGCOV. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 13:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • And salt, per subsequent comments. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete and re-salt Yet again, this web series does not meet WP:SIGCOV. It's been created and recreated numerous times. Until there is some sources that show this meets WP:SIGCOV, it's time to leave this locked up. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 14:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — I would strongly recommend against salting, as it only encourages more creations at variant article titles such as differing capitalizations. It’s preferable to keep them in a single article history for the future in which, inevitably, a reliable source publishes something about it and it become eligible for an article. — Timwi ( talk) 15:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete and re-salt I have been able to find zero reliable sources giving this any coverage at all. The Forbes article mentioned above is from a contributor - even if it gave the subject significant coverage (which it doesn't), it wouldn't be reliable, and so would not help establish notability. When there is just nothing out there from reliable sources we stay silent - Fandom is the place for this sort of stuff, not here. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment regarding whoever may vote Keep: If anyone is that desperate for Wikipedia to have information on Battle for Dream Island despite independent, reliable sources never bothering to give it enough coverage to meet criteria, why haven't any of them ever considered trying to create an article about its creators, Michael and Cary Huang, instead? After all, TomSka has an article, but asdfmovie merely redirects to it. If BFDI fans are lucky enough to find significant reliable coverage of the Huang twins (regardless of whether or not those sources even mention BFDI at all), then they might finally see Wikipedia have information on not only Battle for Dream Island, but also Scale of the Universe as well. – MrPersonHumanGuy ( talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • why haven't any of them ever considered trying to create an article about its creators — I already said this everywhere. Literally everybody I know immediately says “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. This is the perception that you’ve curated among the general public and you don’t even realize it. — Timwi ( talk) 19:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I agree, this would be a better avenue. -- Meester Tweester ( talk) 16:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  We’re working on it Idamensional 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, salt and trout since SALT won't protect it from another out of process admin re-creation. Disappointing that an 18 year admin has zero familiarity with criteria for inclusion, which this meets none of. Star Mississippi 15:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the criteria, it’s that I apply common sense, disagree with them where appropriate, and I try to make Wikipedia palatable to more non-admin contributors. It is very unfortunate that Wikipedia has turned into this rigid rules machine that cannot see when its concept of “notability” starkly contradicts everyday common sense, would rather destroy people’s work instead of helping it, and as a result, discourages almost anyone who would otherwise be a passionate contributor from contributing. — Timwi ( talk) 19:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If your suggestion is that we instead accept articles sourced entirely to blogs and fandom wikis, then the remedy is worse than the disease. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 19:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
      • I have no idea what you mean by that. Deleting an article that other people have worked on is objectively worse than keeping it and letting people find out about the topic. No-one’s even asking for it to be promoted or featured or anything. By all means slap a notice on it telling readers that it’s “sourced entirely to blogs and fandom wikis”. I have never heard any good reason from anyone why any good-faith contribution to Wikipedia (that isn’t vandalism, libel, or just garbage) needs to be deleted. All that serves to do is give a massive middle finger to anyone trying to give something to the world, and produces an inferior encyclopedia with less coverage. — Timwi ( talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
        • If you are an admin, and don't understand what reliable sources are and what general notability is, and more important why they are REQUIRED for an article to stay published, resign your tools now. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

        The general consensus is that it results in a better encyclopedia, which admittedly has less coverage, but which is more authoritative and has better levels of verifisbility and accuracy. Folk who want to find out about subjects like this can look at Fandom; folk who want to write about it can do so over there too. If we start allowing articles that are sourced to Fandom, WordPress blogs and the like then we will rapidly become Fandom.

        I don't know what sort of subjects your friends have tried writing about, or what sort of sources they used. If they think there is no use writing articles about obscure shows, based off of blogs, they are correct that that's a waste of time. However, lots of new articles are being written every hour of every day, without being nominated for deletion: they just have to provide reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Tell your friends that. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

    You've been told that's what draft space is for (helping people's work). This article is wholly inappropriate for the main article space, and there's no sourcing to fix it, therefore it cannot stand. Your personal beliefs are out of alignment with the community's consensus. We're not a directory of everything that exists, they're welcome to go to Fandom or a blog to learn about this, it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Not sure whether to take your argument as a plan to recreate it. If it is deleted and you do so, you will undoubtedly be blocked. Just food for thought. Star Mississippi 23:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, and resalt for now, but The guys behind the show, Cary and Michael Huang are responsible for "The Scale of the Universe", which has received some substantial coverage, still probably not enough for notability, but I could imagine this eventually being a redirect to them, if they ever gets more substantial coverage and become notable in the future. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete and resalt - sourcing is completely unacceptable, and there doesn't seem to be any RS coverage of this. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Salt per above discusion. NW1223( ^{Howl at me}/ _{My hunts}) 23:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

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.