This is anessay onnotability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or aWikipedia policy, as it has not beenreviewed by the community.

Shortcuts WP:BFDIWP:BFDI WP:OSCWP:OSC WP:Object showWP:Object show

This page in a nutshell: Popularity does not confer notability. Consensus can change.

Battle for Dream Island(BFDI) is an American animatedweb series onYouTube created by twin brothersCary and Michael Huang. The show was not covered by a standalone Wikipedia article for nearly 16 years, despite its YouTube channel having over 2 billion views and 3 million subscribers.^[a] This is becauseBFDI did not receive enoughsignificant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet thegeneral notability guideline untillate 2025. Articles without such sourcing would not meet the requirements forneutral point of view andverifiability.

This essay explains whyBFDI pages were repeatedlydeleted and eventuallycreation protected (or "salted") so that onlyadministrators could re-create them, until the article was finally recreated. If you are new to Wikipedia, then this essay is for you. For experienced editors, this can also be a case study on Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines likenotability,what Wikipedia is andis not, anddisruptive editing, as well as on howconsensus can change.

Other franchises likeHenry Stickmin andInanimate Insanity (the latter being inspired byBFDI) may also be popular, but they still fail to meet the said policies and guidelines. Other examples of non-notable topics that have been the subject of repeated creation attempts are listed atWikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. As such,several users have used the term "WP:BFDI" to broadly reference the fact that a subject'spopularity does not guarantee notability. These policies have nothing to do with the quality of the works themselves, but rather, are meant to reflect whether or not a subject is capable of having an article written about it from a neutral point of view.

On Wikipedia, articles must be written from aneutral point of view. This is one of Wikipedia'sfundamental five principles. Wikipedia's notability system is crafted around this concept. There should be enough sources for us to see what the significant points of view on a topic are. For example, if there are multiple reviews published aboutBFDI, we can talk about what the critics liked and what people thought about it.

It is also important for sources to be reliable. Websites hostingself-published and/oruser-generated content likeFacebook andFandom are unreliable because anyone there can publish anything, including false and/or biased information. People who disapprove ofBFDI could write (or pay someone to write)unduly negative reviews about the show, which would not be representative of the true consensus of critics. This is why sources need to be reliable. A reputable publication would see if the review came from a professional critic and if they are being genuine.

On Wikipedia, the wordnotability is very different from how it is used by everybody else. Normally,notable is just another word for being important. However, on Wikipedia,notable means that an article about the subject can be written if it

1. has aneutral point of view
2. isverifiable with reliable sources
3. gives detailed, encyclopedic coverage of the topic.

There have been countless failed attempts to find sources which fit these criteria. Notability is an extension of Wikipedia'sverifiability andneutrality policies.

It is also important to notice the plural inreliable sources.

IMDb andFandom were common sources found in attemptedBFDI articles; these websites areuser-generated since anyone can edit their content. Wikipedia holds articles to a much higher standard of reliability, where the facts are almost guaranteed to be correct, hencereliable. Other common sources are YouTube links to the web series itself. However, they do not contribute to notability as they areprimary sources not independent from the subject. Articles that predominantly base their information on primary sources are less objective, especially when interpretations of these sources come from, in this case, a hugeBFDI fan.

A common misunderstanding is that notability exists purely to limit knowledge to only what is deemed "important". This is not true. Here is Wikipedia's founder on its purpose:

Our goal is to document knowledge in an organized fashion, no matter how mundane or important they are. If an unbiased, reliable article could be made aboutBFDI, such an article would have been made a long time ago.

A similar case occurred withSMG4, an Australian-based YouTube channel that createsMachinima videos featuring characters fromSuper Mario and otherNintendo franchises.^[2] After extensive discussions over notability, SMG4 ultimately became a redirect toGlitch Productions, an animation company run by SMG4's creators.^[3] As forBFDI, however, there were no Wikipedia articles or lists that meaningfully dedicate a section toBFDI (see"Battle for Dream Island"). This means that unlike SMG4, aBFDI redirect could not lead anywhere and thus could not be created as such.

YouTube,Fandom, andIMDb had been some of the most common sources found in pages aboutBFDI. Such sources are considered generally unreliable because they areuser-generated andself-published sources. Generally speaking, Fandom and IMDb can be edited by anyone with an account without editorial oversight. YouTube videos can be considered reliable sources if they are published by reputable agencies, such asReuters, or by subject-matter experts, such as a renowned professor.

BFDI videos published byjacknjellify are consideredprimary sources. These videos do provide insight for those unfamiliar with the show; however,any interpretation made by Wikipedia editors (e.g.character development, canonicity ofBFDI media, and "theories" aboutBFDI) must be backed with a secondary source, otherwise they would violate theno original research policy. Additionally, these videos can only show things from the creator's perspective, compromising their objectivity.

While a subject's popularity may suggest notability, it does not automatically guarantee notability in the context of Wikipedia. Though the channel hostingBFDI has over 3 million subscribers and over 2 billion views,^[4][a] these numbers alone would not have justified the creation of aBFDI article on Wikipedia. Usually, when something is popular, many reliable sources report on the subject, making it notable. However,BFDI had been an exception, with editors being unable to find independent, reliable sources that significantly covered this show until 2025.BFDI's popularity can be seen through the existence of numerousFandom pages,^[5][6][7] but it was not able to appear on Wikipedia unless notability was demonstrated. It should be noted that other independent animated projects such asThe Amazing Digital Circus andLackadaisy have Wikipedia articles because of their notability, not necessarily because of their popularity.

Likewise,notable subjects are not always well-known. For example, countless bridges, highways, railroads, and cities have extensive coverage despite not being very popular or well known outside of a specific geographic region. For example,Interstate 238 in California has reliable coverage detailing the highway's history, even though the highway is not well known outside of the Bay Area.

Wikipedia has apage type called "drafts", on which new articles can be developed before being published as actual articles that would appear on search engines. Since drafts and user pages are not usually found by casual readers, editors do not need to worry about them getting deleted just because of bad writing or a lack of sources. A draft is usually not deleted unless ithas not been edited in six months or it meets any othercriteria for speedy deletion.

However, drafts aboutBFDI were often deleted through numerousmiscellany for deletion discussions. Users who participated in these discussions agreed that these drafts had many bad edits and that the drafts being submitted for review and declined over and over againused up editors' time. For example,one deleted draft about a similar web series was submitted for review and declined over ten times.

While editors are permitted to storedrafts in their userspace with the possibility of becoming actual articles, editors may not use their userspace to indefinitely hostpages that look like articles. These are often indexed on search engines and make Wikipedia look more like a webhost,which it is not. Wikipedia is aformalencyclopedia, not a dumping ground for non-notable topics.

User pages are for collaboration and communication, with the ultimate purpose of maintaining one as part of a Wikipedia editor'sefforts to build an encyclopedia. Therefore, user pages cannot have "fake articles" about topics that are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia.

In order to compensate for the lack of critical reviews and analysis from reliable sources, many attemptedBFDI articles often were plot-only summary of works.Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Instead,Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Entries only consisting of plot summaries are better suited for alternative wikis such asIMDb orFandom. Remember that Wikipedia is for everyone, not just fans of a certain series, and that Wikipedia must abide by aneutral point of view–showing that people both like and dislike a certain piece of media.

Disruptive editing, even if it is meant toget a point across, is simply prohibited.

In manydeletion discussions relating toBFDI, many editors reached a consensus thatBFDI is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. In spite of this, pages aboutBFDI were constantly recreated against consensus several times,wasting editors' time in the process. As a result of tendentious recreations, pages that include in their title any variation of "Battle for Dream Island" or "BFDI" had been blocked from recreation in a technical level (i.e.creation protection andTitleBlacklist).

On Wikipedia, "gaming the system" is the act of using the rules against their intended purpose to engage in unacceptable behavior.Wikipedia is not a government entity where the rules are written in such a way thatunintended consequences are allowed to occur. Instead, rules are written with the goal of improving Wikipedia; likewise, certain rulescan be ignored should they inhibit said improvements.

There had been consensus against recreating articles aboutBFDI, leading tocreation protection and placement on theTitleBlacklist. However, these protections only blocked the creation of the exact title, which may becase sensitive. Due to their limited scope, there were attempts tocreate pages against consensus using name and spelling variations ofBattle for Dream Island, such asBattleFor Dream Island,Battle fordreamisland,Battle for BFDI, andJacknjellify. Having multiple articles with similar name variants and/or in different namespaces, especially if they are indexed in search engines, would create confusion with regard to which article is the actual one intended for the topic.

Whilst repeatedly making the same proposal without presenting new evidence or arguments is potentially disruptive, it is still the case that, even when something has been rejected many times, it can still be accepted. Therefore, in the case of BFDI, the article was eventually created because new instances of significant coverage had been published, and consensus about the notability of BFDI changed accordingly.

The first known attempt to create an article aboutBFDI occurred inDecember 2010, of which the article was speedy deleted forhaving noclaim of significance. Over the years,BFDI became the subject of article recreations by various users, resulting in speedy deletions (often for the same reason) and latercreation protections. In an effort tocircumvent this restriction, name variants of the same topic were used in page titles, such as "Battle for BFDI" and "Jacknjellify". Users have also created draft pages about this topic, such as "Draft:Battle for Dream Island" and "Draft:Battle for BFDI".

BFDI becameincreasingly popular in the late 2010s, coinciding with the popularity of its fourth season,Battle for BFDI, which was released in 2017. This led toBFDI pages being recreated, deleted, andcreation protected more frequently. Usersnominated these pages for deletion and the consensus amongst them favored deleting most of them and imposing indefinite creation restrictions on some of them. As part of these restrictions, in September 2020, the term "Battle for Dream Island" was placed underTitleBlacklist with other related terms being added in subsequent years.^[b] In 2022, administratorTimwirestored theBattle for Dream Island article and wasreprimanded by theArbitration Committee for doing that. Later that year, adeletion review was made to addressBFDI page recreations.

In 2025, followinga discussion on the administrators' noticeboard,Draft:Battle for Dream Island was recreated by administratorFOARP based on new sources that had emerged in the intervening time since the previous AFD. After the publication of additional instance of significant coverage of BFDI, and a month of various editors contributing to the draft as well as adeletion review,consensus about the article's notability had changed, and the draft was moved to mainspace.

Certain articles, lists, and disambiguation pages unrelated toBFDI werevandalized simply due to their titles matching the names of settings and characters from the series.

The article on theFederal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information wasvandalized and reverted multiple times because the agency's official abbreviation happens to be BfDI (German:Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit). Two instances ofarticle hijacks occurred on 20 August 2023 (1 and2), both of which werecopy-pasted fromthis Fandom page. FromSeptember 2024 until the BFDI article was created, the article was placed under indefinitesemi-protection to mitigate vandalism. The articleDream Island is also a frequent target.

Disambiguation and list pages likeDream Island (disambiguation),Woody (name) andBFB have faced similar issues as editors have added non-article entries in these pages. Perdisambiguation guidelines, these pages should not have non-article entries.

There are a few ways for pages to get deleted:opening a deletion discussion,proposing a deletion without any discussion, andspeedy deletion. Administrators would usually speedy delete newBFDI articles as they were oftenrecreations of deleted articles. In the past, these articles were speedy deleted under criterionA7 for "not indicating the importance or significance of the subject", though the series now definitely shows a claim of significance.

While articles are subject tonotability guidelines where significant and reliable secondary sources are required, drafts and user pages arenot subject to such rules. However, these pages, along with other namespaces, are still subject to other sets of rules likewhat Wikipedia is not. Drafts can benominated for deletion, although this usually involves conduct like tendentious resubmissions. In order for a draft to not get declined after a review, it should have plenty ofreliable sources. Keep in mind thatself-published sources anduser-generated content such asYouTube videos andFandom wikis are consideredunreliable and therefore donot count.

However, even when an article has been deleted many, many times on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it necessarily has to remain deleted forever, sinceconsensus can change, particularly with new evidence.

To publish content aboutBFDI that is not suitable for Wikipedia, there are plenty ofalternative outlets where you can contribute. For example:

• I have a Wikipedia article now? 🤩 (but it's not BFDI) onYouTube — 2024 video with Cary Huang

• Wikipedia essays about media
• Wikipedia essays about notability
• Wikipedia essays about deletion
• Essays about what Wikipedia is
• Wikipedia behavioral essays

• Wikipedia semi-protected project pages