ive been reading some articles on homestar runner, and some of them use citations from the wiki. however, if the h*r wiki can be cited, then why cant bfdi's wiki be cited? plus h*r's wiki can still be edited, even though it is (honestly) much more well-managed. not trying to attack, im just wondering.
Look I know this isn’t gonna work and let me preface this by saying I love the work all Wikipedia editors do but I feel like the “oh it isn’t notable because no news sources have covered it” argument is kinda just not a good argument when something is THIS popular. News articles are written when something interesting happens about the show not just because it exists. it’s just some silly show about objects with nothing news-level-notable around it which means it doesn’t have any news-worthy material but it’s genuinely REALLY popular despite that.
I probably sound like an idiot to anyone who doesn’t know anything about this show but I will stand by the point that I’m right. 2601:188:CE01:890:647A:83DE:D048:BB11 (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Babysharkboss gave an oversimplified answer. Good sources are not limited to just news sources. They can be books, articles, a reputable reviewer's animation blog, etc. Counterintuitively, Wikipedia's definition "notable" does not mean "news-worthy". THey mean if there are enough good sources to base a Wikipedia article. Catalk to me!03:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
To review BFDI, the news/review company has to watch the show, but that is likely to introduce bias (BFDI is popular, after all, so remaining bored and disinterested is a pointlessly difficult task,) therefore making such a source near impossible to be reliable. Therefore such a source is unlikely to exist unless BFDI is forgotten, but as it seems to be quite the contrary (BFDI is gaining views at an exponentially increasing rate), an article is almost impossible to exist until the year 2500 at best (it usually takes centuries for popularity to die out). Moreover, reliable sources are slowly becoming more difficult to obtain, so an article on BFDI is unlikely to exist until the year 3000, and if there aren’t any reliable sources by 3500 it will become truly impossible. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. 121.200.5.211 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Independent sources does not mean unbiased. Independent means that the subject is unaffiliated from the source. Reviewers doesn't have to be "bored and disinterested". in fact, if they are writing a review about it, it shows that they like or do not like it enough to write an article about it. Catalk to me!06:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, many review companies have strict guidelines for what can and can’t be reviewed, but if a review can exist, one most likely would have existed several months ago. Few significant events related to BFDI have occurred within the last few months. 121.200.5.211 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Honestly in my opinion, there probably is one. The fact is that most of bfdi’s seasons are overlapped. For instance bfdi is a term used by the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, and searching up stuff like “bfdi review” for example, will likely give you a source from it.
there are hundreds and thousands of millions of pages on the internet, most of it is obscure because it is either old or non findable.
Considering this. Most of the pages that talk about it are probably deleted or on Archive.org.
but even when considering this. Searching for bfdi at this point is almost impossible. Even if it exists it’s probably buried under unrelated websites like fandom or imbd to a point where it is non existence. Led lore (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
So yes. It can exist. Its not purposefully impossible to make one, one just doesn’t exist. (This is a bit biased) but the new seasons which are tpot or bfdia(b) have tv show levels of quality, so it would be less likely to be disliked by a news source.
if it does exist. Likely it would be something like Tadc’s situation. Where it gets so popular that many news sources comment on it
Though, the main reason that bfdi doesn’t get a news article. Is because it’s not in high demand. Most people are fine with having no wikipedia page (because of sites like Fandom (website)) Led lore (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Asking news outlets to comment on bfdi is a good way too get a review on it.. but it should not be overdone.
if you want a news article.. please don’t ever spam it, it may seem infuriating if there’s no response but posting it over and over again is not a good thing to do. Led lore (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
account made just to complain about bfdi not being on wikipedia. RmationYT also features in this description but he started like a day ago shJunpeitalk20:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes but they should at least be properly warned first. I think with this talk page section, they've now been warned, and if disruption continues from here, ANI, yes. ObserveOwl (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Though I haven't been active on wikipedia in quite some time, I came here after seeing this person bragging on the BFDI fandom about how they "cooked" the people on wikipedia, and came here to read it. While it is somewhat immature, I don't see how making a wikipedia account solely to argue on an issue is worthy of getting blocked. It's just a talk page and they aren't doing any harm and I don't see how them making the account specifically for that reason is any different from an active contributor arguing the same case. Spacebyte (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi I have tried taking accountability when people told me that what I was saying was wrong on the BFDI wiki. I am so sorry for my immaturity. I’m going to try not to do something like this again. I probably might not edit for a while. RmationYT (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Section on BFDI's inclusion on other pages?
I'll preface this by saying that I am aware there have already been some complaints about this page being too long and wordy as is (I personally feel the topic justifies its length but I digress). However, I think that the page could do with a section on BFDI's involvement with regards to other pages. Over the past few months there have been a few recurring edit wars over certain pages such as TomSka and Kevin MacLeod where users have been attempting to add to their film/discographies content that is related to BFDI in some fashion, yet these changes are frequently reverted, and there is not really a clear explanation as to why. One would assume, much like the main subject itself, that the reason is because it lacks sufficient sources to back it up, however there are some instances where this does not appear to be the case. For example, per the former's talk page, there was apparently a sufficient source for Tomska's involvement in a recent BFDI episode, however the edit was later reverted by another anonymous editor with no reason given other than a link back to this page, something they would proceed to do with Kevin Macleod's page as well. I believe this has given some BFDI fans the false impression that Wikipedia has a complete ban on any mention of BFDI whatsoever when there is probably a valid reason for why these credits are being removed.
For the record, I am not a BFDI fan advocating for these credits to be included on their respective pages, nor am I suggesting that said credits have no place there. I am speaking merely as a neutral party. That being said, considering that this topic is not really covered on the page besides one or two sentences regarding list pages which I feel are a slightly different case compared to what I am bringing up here, I think a short section detailing Wikipedia's stance on these matters would be beneficial to both groups. Or at the very least, expanding that aforementioned short sentence or two into a paragraph explaining the matter. Even if it boils down to a simple matter of "sources are needed" I think the situation is nuanced enough that a bit of explanation is required for people to understand why BFDI doesn't fit on these pages either. 2603:8001:E600:2741:84F0:FF67:9112:BA53 (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
It will probably be hard to get a hold of the person who originally made the reverts as they, much like myself, are operating off of an ip and are thus can't really be gotten a hold of unless they are actively monitoring those pages. However, I will try to open up a dialogue on both talk pages so a greater consensus can be reached. 2603:8001:E600:2741:84F0:FF67:9112:BA53 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello. as a fellow bfdi fan, I understand your outrage, but making a BFDI page would be impossible to do. If you didn't read this page clearly, it's that BFDI might be notable, but news articles haven't talked about it alot. Homestuck might also be on the same level as BFDI, However it has way more news articles than bfdi. If you wanna complain, at EVERY article refrences are needed. It's not as simple as "Write up factual info". However a Cary Huang article may be possible.
I'm not being a piece of shit rn but there's a TON of news articles, and I mean TON revolving around BFDI. I'll give 5, if you ask more then ill look for more
and there's some interviews about satomi and an animator about this show but i forgot i must be lying woooooooooo!1!11!!!1 also "Popular doesn't equal Noticeable" is actually crazy what if the same logic applied to Murderer Drones or Dream's PDF allegations😭 Enter a cookie please (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Apparently the reason why there is no BFDI wikipedia page is because no independent sources, IMO that shouldn,t be a rule anymore, Wikipedia hasn't updated their notablility guidelines since 2002, and Wikipedia doesn't care about how interconnected the internet is. Why does the town of Monticello, AR (who has even heard of that random place and a population of less than 10,000) have a Wikipedia page (BFDI probably has more fans than people in Arkansas.) It is even more bogus why the Huang Twins don't have their own wikipedia page, The Scale of the Universe (a project by the Huang Twins) has a wikipedia page, the Huang Twins should have their own wikipedia page. If you're not gonna add BFDI to wikipedia, at least add it to the Simple English Wikipedia as those pages don't need to be heavily sourced. This page did not need to be a college essay. you could have just said "no independent sources=no page" AmericanAccount704 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Omg for realllllll one of my biggest gripes about this website is that it’s trying so hard to be professional it forgot the reason why it exists: to make knowledge more accessible. Like please people stopped reading the news a decade ago. RmationYT (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
BFDI already has its own wiki, which has more than enough information, much more than a Wikipedia page can provide. And besides, if news is biased, people can just remove those citations and replace them with appropriate ones. (or remove the whole section if necessary.) hi (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
A few publications widely regarded as biased, like professional review websites or some advocacy organizations, are considered reliable due to their editorial standards when it comes to validity of claims. What's important to understand is that opinionated statements should be attributed ("The Lorem Ipsum Times critic John Doe regarded BFDI as the best series to ever exist.") ObserveOwl (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
"Things can be notable without entering news" You're right. We also accept book coverage from non-self publishers, academic coverage found on areas such as the Wikipedia Library or Google Scholar, among other methods. This is how Wikipedia was built and, while I understand it may be confusing or an "outdated system" as you stated (though I would disagree with that sentiment), this is an essential system to make sure content can be: a. easily verified and b. remain neutral, as others have said. Even when the sources are biased, we tend to attribute them as opinion pieces. If you still disagree and insist that a page be created anyways, I don't really know what to tell you besides that you're not helping. λNegativeMP118:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I’ve tried replying many times but for some reason it doesn’t show up but I tried apologizing many times. I’m so sorry for how dumb this is RmationYT (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Would this count?
Here's something from a Californian News Outlet. Not something for a BFDI article, but good for an article about (1 of) the creators' history section.
I’m all for giving BFDI a page but this probably wouldn’t help 😞
I guess we can have like- severely outdated Michael and Cary Huang pages if we should “only stick to what’s said in the news BLAH BLAH BLAH I LOVE THE NEWS”
Kudos to you for finding a source this obscure! I agree it would be useful for an article about Michael and Cary Huang, but more up-to-date sourcing is needed for a decent article. Catalk to me!16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm a BFDI fan, but I think the lack of sources is not necessarily a good thing. Without such sources one could just make an article full of misinformation. Coolman1151 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
How come a BFDI article exists on the Japanese Wikipedia?
So basically I found that for some reason the Japanese (w:ja:Battle for dream island) Wikipedia has an article for BFDI. Do other language Wikipedias have their own notability guidelines? Because after translating the article I found it had no sources and just some external links to Jacknjellify's YT page and the Fandom wiki. I know it has what appears to be a candidate for deletion template at the top but this feels really odd. 81.2.157.231 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not. The different WP:s have their own people (though some editors edit WP in more than one language) and their own rules. The article may be deleted on ja-WP or not, it doesn't matter here. More at WP:RSPWP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Unless the nominator is actually fluent in Japanese, nominating an article in a language they don't speak is rarely appropriate; machine translations (e.g. Google Translate) can be inaccurate, especially with complex syntaxes. Also, WP:BFDI only applies to English Wikipedia (WP:BFDI is only hosted on enwiki) because Japanese Wikipedia does not have the same problems with BFDI as its English counterpart. AlphaBeta135talk15:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The answer to this question seems probably evident enough, but I must ask.
So lets just say in the future, BFDI gets a few (unpaid) articles made by major sources, likely how homestuck or Skibidi Toilet have them. How many articles would it take for this ban or block to be lifted? Just One? Two? Coolman1151 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The general notability criteria says "reliable sources" (plural), so technically, two are enough, but three sources are commonly considered a minimum in deletion discussions. To be honest, what counts more, though, is the quality and depth of the sources (quality over quantity). ObserveOwl (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
The History section probably doesn't need to exist but I think everything else belongs in some fashion on the page. The point of the essay is to explain why BFDI does not qualify for a page, a topic on which there seems to be a lot of misinformation or at least misunderstanding from the general fandom that does not know how wikipedia works, so evidently the writers opted to be as thorough as possible in their explanation. It probably comes off as wordy, but only because it essentially needs to summarize many of the intricacies of page creation and proper sourcing. 2603:8001:E600:2741:1CD2:E657:E906:AC86 (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Sources
I think I've found a few sources that are not stuff like YouTube, Fandom, or IMDb.
That's not the reason why. The salting and blacklists only really mean that someone can't just make a BFDI page, they would have to consult about making one first before it could actually be done. (And, likely as a result, the provided sources would likely be put under more scrutiny than usual). 2603:8001:E600:2741:1CD2:E657:E906:AC86 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
With TADC coming to netflix soon, I think BFDI will come to some streaming platform by 2035, and if that happens, BFDI is 100% getting a wikipedia page because sources usually cover tv shows on large streaming services. Ik the creators said to keep BFDit casual, but never say never on this case. AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I feel like they were joking here. I am probably wrong about this but I believe BFDI at its current rate of recognition could get sufficient articles in around 2+ years and get a page. Just a personal prediction though. Coolman1151 (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Wow you guys seriously hate BFDI, right?
I understand why you people at wikipedia would be opposed to BFDI's inclusion, and we can agree to disagree, that's fine, but when it gets to the point of condescendingly writing paragraphs about how BFDI will never be on this site, and viscously hounding anyone who disagrees, that's too far. You guys are just trying to stir up drama and unnecessary tension. 81.2.157.231 (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide WP:DIFFS of people "viscously hounding anyone who disagrees"? Claims of wrongdoing should be supported with evidence. All I see above is people calmly explaining the guidelines.
I don't really see which parts of this essay reads condescending; can you provide examples? This essay is written since so that the numerous people who try to make articles about BFDI becomes informed of the reasoning behind the deletions. Most viewers of BFDI are kids so explanations are worded simply.
Look I understand where you’re coming from but.. to put it simply.. the wikipedia page needs to be written.. but we have to know what to write to write a page.. so we get the info from reviews that are proven to be true.. but bfdi has none of these types of reviews..
You don’t need to hear somebody powerful spout out a crumb of information when you have the whole dish publicly available. RmationYT (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
It's just that you guys are giving big "QUIT HAVING FUN" energy, and what are you trying to do, get a rise out of us BFDI fans? Is this some kind of mass personal vendetta you hold against an innocent community? Do you seriously lack the basic human decency to treat innocent people with respect? Do you realize how big the BFDI community is? Trust me, all this is basically you digging your own grave. If this issue gets the spotlight on the BFDI wiki, there will be hundreds if not thousands of unhappy BFDI fans that will only make this problem worse. 81.2.157.231 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
No, I used to be a regular watcher of BFDI and still is a fan. I check up on the fandom once in a while. I am sure no one wants to be killjoys here: people would be scrambling to write a Wikipedia article about BFDI if reliable sources were published (take the article The Scale of the Universe as an example). Sadly none exists as of writing. That said, I think it would suit you well to take Cary Huang's advice and take a moment to calm down. Catalk to me!09:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Please grow up. People like you are part of the reason why I am personally done with the object shows community. Wikipedia is not a directory for everything that does, has, and will exist, get over it. 118.148.78.118 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
You should read the essay and see how the term "notability" doesn't mean what you think it does in Wikipedia. It isn't a measure of real-life importance or significance. It is a test to see if a neutral and verifiable article could be written about topic. Otherwise, we are duplicating the hard work of other fan-written wikis. Catalk to me!13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting! But the article only mentions BFDI once, elaborates a bit on the Q&A event, and moves on with other events unrelated to the series, so it doesn't look like significant coverage. It could perhaps be used a bit on the BFDI article if it ever gets notable, but not much more than that. ObserveOwl (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Given the snippet I could see on the article, Business Insider did have a brief introduction into what BFDI is, particularly who made it, and the QNA event is directly about BFDI as well (as seen in the front page image), so I don't think it's just a mere mention of BFDI, so to say. HomerN2763 (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The QNA event was also used as an example to introduce the main topic of the article, unlike
Right - but it should be more in-depth about the series than a single sentence only stating its creators. This is for the Wikipedia article to have potential to expand beyond a very short stub. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree a lot with that. However, I think you are still downplaying the original research done by the author (Amanda Perelli).
I also disagree with the idea that the article "only mentions BFDI once" (when it is already mentioned twice in the header photo and description, even before the article begins).
1. The reporter physically attended the event, as part of writing this article.
How do we know this?
The headline photo chosen to lead the article (reading "BFDI & INANIMATE INSANITY TOUR 2024") was the only 1 of 3 photos to be taken by Perelli herself — see the photo credits.
This is a new, unique photo. Do you think a senior reporter making a dedicated trip out of an event (on company time) is not already making an intentional choice to center it?
2. New, original testimony from co-creator Cary Huang, collected by the reporter.
When it says "'I just love the idea of turning the microphone around and having the audience make the majority of the sound,' Cary Huang said."
This is also new. No other source is cited here: just want to acknowledge Perelli again presenting information we would not have otherwise seen (these are some of Cary's first words in a reliable publication).
3. A "brief introduction" that is still multiple paragraphs
True, this section is not book-length, but 7 sentences and the one photo dedicated to the article are absolutely more than the "trivial mention" idea that your linked definition describes.
4. One of 3 covered is still coverage
When you read the article, you notice it is structured in thirds:
BFDI animators,
"Celebrity Memoir Book Club" comedians,
and "Snapback Agency" basketball.
It's really only 3 subjects. While you write that the article "moves on with other events unrelated to the series", it's hard to interpret that in good faith when the same definition you link says that "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" to be significant coverage anyway (let alone the first of 3).
Thanks for getting into detail about the full article, I could not have full access to Business Insider (not that I'm looking to pay for their subscription anyway) HomerN2763 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The photo caption just repeats what the article says, so I didn't consider it a new mention with more information.
1. Okay, but how does it change the depth of coverage if they were there? An image doesn't change this either, it's probably copyrighted anyway so the Wikipedia article won't likely use it.
2. Cool, but what does that contribute to an understanding of BFDI? He likes to interact with the public... alright. That's also non-independent material.
3. The remaining sentences are about the event, while an article about BFDI should focus on, well, the series. It does not need to be book-length, just a few paragraphs about the series.
4. That's true, "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", but I didn't say otherwise - I only said that it doesn't have much usable coverage beyond the event. If the article had like three or four decently sized paragraphs for further context behind the event - about BFDI itself -, even if it didn't take the whole article, it could constitute significant coverage. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with ObserveOwl, it is a first mention of BFDI in any reliable source. It is a significant step, though not yet sufficient, in writing an article about BFDI. Catalk to me!01:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, neither of them qualifies as GNG as it was written by the production team themselves and was not endorsed by the News Sources. HomerN2763 (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ca I agree. If the article contains this much coverage of BFDI, it's a good source; however, we still need a few more. MultPod (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Bogus reasoning
A long running, award winning web series that had a multi-city tour across the USA, official merchandise, a Scholastic book tie-in, and had people like Kevin Macleod, Tomska, etc as guest stars. It seems the only way to get BFDI to have a wikipedia page is to get Donald Trump to watch it. People like Scott The Woz and Chuggaaconroy have less subscribers and less views, yet he is allowed to have a Wikipedia page? If you want news coverage, Microsoft news covered it recently. Feels like a lot of bias here. Brian Koch (a director for Inanimate Insanity and someone who works for Nickelodeon) disagrees with the No BFDI/II policy on Wikipedia, and so do I. You claim Tomska has reliable sources (who also voice acted on BFDI) but not Jacknjellify/Animationepic? AmericanAccount704 (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
For reference this tweet appears to have brought you here. It's easy to understand why you'd think Wikipedia is being unfair to BFDI but to be honest it doesn't seem like you've read this page well enough. Wikipedia's criteria for notability and how BFDI doesn't meet them are both discussed thoroughly. Unless you have a new reliable, independent source you can link to, the fact that BFDI doesn't have a Wikipedia article isn't likely to change. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
But that's my point: it isn't anyone's "belief" that BFDI isn't notable that prevents the article's creation. It is a lack of reliable, independent sources that renders BFDI to not be notable according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I read through the responses to that Twitter post and most of the people criticizing how Wikipedia works have no idea how Wikipedia works. For those who happen to read this comment, notability on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the popularity of a subject. A person who only a handful of people have ever heard of can be more notable than BFDI, with which millions are likely familiar. I know this is counterintuitive, which is why I said I understand why you think it's unfair that BFDI doesn't have an article. An article on BFDI could be created tomorrow if we find sources that would make such an article meet the notability criteria. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Well maybe it doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines. But if a "award winning web series that had a multi-city tour across the USA, official merchandise, a Scholastic book tie-in, and had people like Kevin Macleod, Tomska, etc as guest stars." doesn't fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines then maybe the problem is with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 2007GabrielT (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I severely dislike the term "Notability"; I believe it to be one of the worst-named guideline whether in or outside Wikipedia. Very counterintuitively, "Notability" in Wikipedia is not a measure of real-life significance. If it is, I'd agree with you that it is failing spectacularly and BFDI merits an article. But the truth is that it's all about sourcing. If there are no sources without a conflict of interest, is it possible write a wp:neutral article? If there are no reliable sources, how could a Wikipedia article be verifiable and reliable? Catalk to me!09:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
For a wikipedia page to be verifiable and reliable it only needs to be based on verifiable facts, which if we don't look at the rules, can be the non independent articles. (Some in fact are allowed to come from primary sources via this rule) As for it being neutral, while in theory would be hard to do without many independent articles, would in practice be very easy to do because what the hell is there to be biased about here? 2007GabrielT (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't care what the rules say. My point is that if the rules say that BFDI doesn't get a page despite being very popular then the rules are bad and should be fixed. 2007GabrielT (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not circular reasoning thats just you saying the same thing twice.
"The "rules" are bad because BFDI is popular and don't have a article." means the same thing as " BFDI don't have a article because the "rules" are bad"
The rule are bad because they don't allow BFDI to have page. Thus BDFI doesn't have page because the rules are bad. I don't see anything circular. 2007GabrielT (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I copied how the rules explain themselves - basically, solely citing the non-independent sources on an article may be seen as advertising, and it would be hard to neutrally explain the cultural impact of the series on the article without an independent source. ObserveOwl (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Y'all havent updates your notability guidelines since 2002, y'all should remoce the indpendent sources rule, the internet is too interconnected to need independent sources AmericanAccount704 (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I strongly believe the universe will end before an independent article exists. The problem isn't Wikipedia, the problem isn't BFDI, the problem is the coverage guidelines or personal opinions of notable, reliable, independent companies' effect that rules out the possibility of a reliable source's existence. The independent companies are just following set guidelines that govern the coverage or exclusion of certain shows. The guidelines are supposed to prevent obscure shows from being covered, but mistakes happen, and "BFDI" has been possibly labeled as obscure and/or unnecessary. It's not anyone's fault "BFDI" is unique. 124.149.252.234 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Then the problem is Wikipedia. If BFDI is popular thing then it should have a Wikipedia page. If anything about Wikipedia's rules prevent BFDI from having a page then the problem are those rules. 2007GabrielT (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
AmericanAccount704: 1. "award-winning" is just a marketing ploy. Awards like the Nobel Prize, Oscars/Academy Awards, Grammys, Tonys, etc. are well-known because they are presented by reputable organizations. The "award" that BFDI received was from one of those amateur news accounts on social media (e.g. Pop Crave) run by a person who has no experience. 2. The Scholastic book was written by the production team, which does not contribute to BFDI's notability. 3. Just because people who have articles were featured on BFDI does not automatically mean it's notable; notability is not inherited. 4. A random jazz band can do a worldwide tour and sell merchandise and not get significant coverage by any reliable sources. 5. There is no "No BFDI/II" policy on Wikipedia. 6. The reason why Scott The Woz and Chuggaconroy have articles is because they are notable. We have credible sources covering them in significant detail. BFDI doesn't have that. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
