Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< 2025 October 24
2025 October 26 >

25 October 2025

  • 3 + 3 (math) – Withdrawn after gaining no support. —Cryptic 02:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
3 + 3 (math) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

May be uncontroversial, but I don't think this meets A10, and no response yet at WP:REFUND even with pinging two admins and I have asked Liz to review it on their talk page, but no response yet. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 19:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've got a response at WP:REFUND now, but they ended up saying:

BodhiHarp, I'll be honest, regardless of whether that page technically met WP:A10, I really can't see how it could be considered useful... — Salvio giuliano 20:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

- BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 20:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment from deleting admin The page, as created, basically stated that 3+3=6 and listed several other basic addition and multiplication facts (e.g., 2+4) with the same result. One can find this same information (arithmetic facts) in the table at Addition#Single-digit addition – with the new article neither substantially expanding on it nor the title making for a plausible redirect – so despite not being a word-for-word duplicate, I believe this still falls within the scope of A10. And while I will not veto another admin undeleting it, I'm reasonably sure an AfD would conclude with a WP:SNOW delete. Complex/Rational 21:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @BodhiHarpl: This is the second low value DRV that you have raised recently. You either do not understand community norms about content or are trolling. Either cease the trolling or go spend some time in mainspace and learn a few things before asking for any new discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging more admins: @331dot, Premeditated Chaos, and Jauerback: - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that pinging a seemingly random group of admins is not helpful to building consensus. Are you hoping to have your draft undeleted, or is there another issue at play that has not already been discussed? Complex/Rational 21:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I concur with ComplexRational. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • So do I. Whatever you think you're doing, please stop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support and close: I seriously doubt you can explain the reception, development, and significance of 3+3. Going off ComplexRational's description, I don't think this is (or can be reworked to) an encyclopedic article.--Thegoofhere (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy close as disruptive, if not outright trollery. The appellant is treading precipitously close to WP:NOTHERE. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    Someone, please close this. A10 may be incorrect in this case, but fine. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 01:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More information First version of source assessment table. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC), Number ...
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Battle for Dream Island (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

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

  • Overturn Unsalt and allow recreation, the topic has finally passed WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 14:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Unsalt and allow recreation as one of the authors of the BFDI essay. The draft contains multiple independent, reliable sources, and the fact that a non-stub draft can be derived from the cited sources indicates significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Ca talk to me! 14:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn I mean Allow recreation, sources are good enough in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation (as the preferred close of this Deletion Review). --Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt And remove from DEEPER, per above. References available appear to get the subject above the GNG threshold. Frank Anchor 16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. The topic was not wiki-notable but it is it wiki-notable now. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies recreating the article. Technical obstacles to creation should be removed.—Alalch E. 16:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation. I haven't looked into notability, so this can still possibly be taken to AfD, but enough time has passed since the disruption caused by supporters that this should be treated no differently from any other article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation: There now exists adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - On first review, I am inclined to agree that we should allow recreation. I will review again more carefully. In view of the long history of disruption, we should avoid an early closure, even if ice crystals (which are objects) are showing up as precipitation in both the Arctic and the Antarctic regions in October. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    For readers of a less WP-nerdy disposition, Robert is alluding to WP:SNOW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation: by a liberal estimate, this article has 4 sources which all are reliable, independent and have significant coverage and two sources which are reliable & independent, but gives restricted coverage about a specific meetup or theater screening from the show. Now, if you want to be restrictive, you could argue that one of the source is only "minimally reliable" (PluggedIn), or that two of the sources lack independence because they contain interviews with creators of the show, but the fact that there is a reasonable view for notability shows that trying to create another article wouldn't be trolling or in violation of guidelines. ALittleClass (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333, there seems to be some consensus here. Would you be ok with closing this discussion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    This discussion shouldn't be rushed Thegoofhere (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    I know it's only been open since the 25th, but the SNOW seems legit to me. Afaict, commenters are actually unanimous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
    Endorse WP:SNOW closure in favor of unsalting and allowing recreation. How much longer should we have to wait? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    November 1st would seem to be the standard time, 1 week after opening. However I also Endorse WP:SNOW closure because the voting is currently unanimous ALittleClass (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and Allow Recreation by appellant. I have reviewed the sources and have created a source table that is the same as those sometimes used in AFD discussions.
It would be nice if {{source assess table}} had a Secondary column. An organization-specific version has it, but not the regular source assessment table. I wonder why not. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: You listed the cinema.usc.edu source twice. Is its coverage probably significant or definitely significant? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
https://cinema.usc.edu/alumni/alumnispotlight/view.cfm?id=72509 isn't reliable or significant, neither is BubbleBlabber Thegoofhere (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
the usc is definitely not SIGCOV for the article under discussion, and bubbleblabber doesn't seem obviously reliable to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Curious as to where you got the "review of some episodes" remark for Bubbleblabber from, as the article is very brief and only quickly summarises a specific detail from the ending of TPOT 19. Not sure of its reliability but its significance I would put as a straight "no". Jurta talk/contribs 15:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Btw, Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island was in existence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. Subject now passes WP:GNG in my view. The Canadian Askew (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comments - First, we only need to argue about the specific values in the source assessment table at AFD. At DRV, I think that we have established that we can have a reasonable discussion of a source assessment table at AFD. Second, we will only need two or three rows that are checked across in order to pass AFD. Third, I have collapsed the previous table and am offering a new table below which I will also put on the talk page of the draft, so that it will be available at AFD. Fourth, there are two different tools for generating a source assessment table, the Excel spreadsheet to wikitable tool, and the template. Some editors use one, and some use the other. I use an Excel spreadsheet and the Excel to wikitable converter. Some of the comments seem to be oriented toward the template. I plan to continue to use the Excel to wikitable tool. Here is a revised table.
NumberReferenceRemarksIndependentSignificantReliableSecondary
1https://www.citizen.co.za/lifestyle/entertainment/bfdo-battle-for-dream-island/South African news articleYesYesYesYes
2https://www.slashfilm.com/2004744/object-shows-gen-alpha-obsession-explained/Magazine article about object shows including BFDIYesYesYesYes
3https://www.pluggedin.com/youtube-reviews/jacknjellify/Article about BFDIYesYes?Yes
4https://www.comicsbeat.com/michael-huang-bfdi-tpot-20-battle-dream-island/ComicsBeat artcle about BFDI andYesYesYesYes
5https://cinema.usc.edu/alumni/alumnispotlight/view.cfm?id=72509About the show's animatorYesYes
6https://www.bubbleblabber.com/2025/09/battle-for-dream-island-the-power-of-two-episode-20-gets-surprise-amc-theaters-screening/A review of some episodesYesProbablyYesYes
7cinema.usc.edu/alumni/alumnispotlight/view.cfm?id=72509An interview with a founder.YesProbablyYesYes
The point that I think I have made, and that I think that we agree on, is that the sources are good enough that they can be argued about at AFD. Our responsibility at DRV is to unsalt the title and to allow the draft to be reviewed. After six more days of arguing about the sources, we can close this discussion by unsalting the title and removing it from DEEPER. And thanks to User:ObserveOwl for finding a mixture of reasonable sources.

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

​which I will also put on the talk page of the draft – I don't see a reason to do this. There exists, and has existed, a more comprehensive and collaboratively made source assessment table at Wikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island. If you'd like to add your own assessment at a hypothetical AfD then it makes the most sense to wait for said AfD. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This, BTW, was why I think DRV wasn't necessary in this case. We're basically pre-AFDing an article that won't necessarily be AFD'd, but which if it is AFD'd, this discussion won't have really decided much about. FOARP (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. The subject has met WP:GNG.
JudeHalley (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt, allow creation per all of the above. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
    I would endorse closing this now as consensus is obvious. Pretty much all the regulars who've showed up agree that this overcomes the hurdle DEEPER imposes. I don't even know we need to call it SNOW; it's just an obvious conclusion spurred on by good enough sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation Basically per above. I'm also going to say that I don't think DRV was necessary for this article. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation. This DRV was appropriate and this is entirely the correct method to get over a WP:DEEPER listing: do the work to make an irresistible case that things have changed. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation: the sources are finally there. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I respectfully disagree with any suggestion that this DRV has not been necessary. The title has been salted. The alternative to requesting Deletion Review would have been to ask the protecting administrator to unilaterally unsalt the title. The title had not been unilaterally salted, but had been salted by the conclusion of the AFD. The protecting administrator had the technical capability to unprotect the title. However, the title had been salted by a community process, and I think that many editors would have considered it an abuse of the administrative tools to unprotect the title unilaterally rather than relying on a community process. Deletion Review is the community process. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as the OP stated, the protecting administrator was asked, and said no, do a DRV. . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation per above. –GM 11:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow recreation per overwhelming consensus here, and close this discussion on account of that. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse salt - see User:JzG/And the band played on... (not my essay obv) for a decent explanation of why I made this !vote. Kinopiko talk 05:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    "By this time it has become virtually impossible for any new article on this band to survive a deletion debate, even when they make the front cover of Rolling Stone, because the relentless use of Wikipedia for vanity has pissed the community off to such an extent."
    So, since BFDI-fans have annoyed Wikipedians so much over the years, we should not have this article even if it meets WP:GNG? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think a user's story about a fictional topic should be considered to set a permanent precedent against the future creation of historically non-notable real-world topics. Wikipedia generally excludes topics if insufficient sources exist, or if their inclusion in any article would be considered undue. People pushing too hard for a topic's inclusion is not a valid reason to continue excluding it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've seen this user blog before and I'm rather confused on why Wikipedians use it, seems incredibly bad no matter how it's used. Using it in this discussion especially just reinforces unaware BFDI fans' ideas that Wikipedia is completely biased and unreliable due to their unfair hatred of BFDI. It would probably be a good idea to take "and the band played on" out of circulation, especially since it's not even a real essay, just some fanfiction by some random user in 2006. ZestySourBoy (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Unsalt and allow creation per all, and close. It has been seven days since this was requested, and there has only been a single critic. TheSilksongPikmin (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Close

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI