Talk:Bright Sun Films

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by JuniperChill (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the film studio Bright Sun Films was originally founded as the YouTube gaming channel "Bright Sun Gaming"?

• Source:

• • Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by A.Classical-Futurist (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC).

• Would suggest rewording: "... that a film production company was originally a YouTube gaming channel?" Article itself is newly-moved enough, long enough, and unlikely copyvio. YouTube is not a reliable source, but may fall under WP:SELFPUBLISHED, as it's their own video; I'll ask a DYK admin in the next sentence. @Launchballer: would this be the case? Roast (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• That rewrite would work & the YouTube link is indeed a primary source. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Unless the promoter wants to contest the YouTube source. Roast (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Beyond the extensive reliance on primary sources, this article has multiple unreliable sources (see WP:FORBESCON and WP:LADBIBLE) and is unfit for DYK in its current form. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Okay, the citation problems should be fixed now. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• As I look back over this, the fact that the hook is still sourced to a primary and non-independent source (the subject's own video) violates WP:DYKHOOK, which says citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook and be reliable. (Emphasis added.) A hook was just pulled for this reason hours ago at WP:ERRORS. Given that this nomination has timed out and still has an insurmountable barrier to approval I am regretfully marking it for closure. (Other DYK reviewers -- if you want to try to fix the problem or disagree with my conclusion, I have no objection if you undo my action here and mark as approved.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: In practice, we do tend to allow hooks based on primary sources, as long as it's non-contentious information and would fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. Rather than there being a blanket ban on such sources, we tend to treat such cases on a case-by-case basis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 I have no objection if another editor wants to make an exception to the plain reading of the rule. Since I was the one who removed the tick over unreliable sources being used, however, I felt responsible for reviewing it again for compliance and I cannot personally approve it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971: Given that this particular case is an WP:ABOUTSELF instance, I'd be inclined to approve it. I was looking for another third-party source to back it up, but I couldn't find one, but given the circumstances it should be acceptable for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I don’t believe this hook meets the requirements, but as I said above I won’t object if another reviewer does; please feel free to approve it if you believe it’s compliant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, DYKHOOK wouldn't be the blocker here. A source that is usable per ABOUTSELF is reliable, it just isn't independent or secondary. However, in the general case, I'd be hard-pressed to say that a fact so uncontroversial that it's reliable under ABOUTSELF and not undue/OR (?) is interesting enough for a DYK hook. Also, my cite highlighter throws red for Inside the Magic and Celluloid Junkie is a press release. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

also, this nomination has passed two months. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Per the above, marking this for closure, not due to the primary sourcing, but due to a combination of DYKTIMEOUT and the reliance on non-reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)