Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning

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 Withdrawal. Article was basically saved from what could've been a permastub and the concerns that made me begin the discussion were addressed. (non-admin closure)‎ NegativeMP1 08:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article used to give the illusion of being notable for having a bunch of unreliable sources caked onto it to justify WP:FANCRUFT. After clearing the garbage, all that remains is only five sources and a WP:PERMASTUB. What are these five sources and what do they have?

1 announces the game is coming to mobile, doesn't say much else except that it was a fad.
2 is just evidence of an Internet fad that died out in months, maybe one paragraph of reception.
3 ...I'm not sure what says, I don't speak German and I don't know about the reliability of Google Translate here.
4 is a developer interview. Usable for development information but nothing really for reception.
5 just says that the game was popular with YouTubers.

None of the sources provided are usable critic reviews (YouTubers do not count) and a search for WP:BEFORE turned up nothing extra. There is also no coverage to cover the games extra versions and the upcoming sequel, which for the subject is key information. This article would be lopsided with being 95% development and gameplay and 5% reception. I almost think it's better not having an article at all due to the lack of coverage, hence why I am nominating it. NegativeMP1 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NegativeMP1 16:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Kotaku and 4Players easily are good enough sources to determine notability, but I'll list some more sources to boot: Game Design Deep Dive: Horror ISBN 9781000451108 (pg. 85), Automaton review (in Japanese), Pixel (in Polish), and Konbini (in French). Niche but reliable publications in lots of languages for you! Why? I Ask (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there proof these smaller niche places are reliable sources? None are listed in WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Game Design Deep Dive: Horror may as well fall under the same boat as the Gematsu / Game Developer article (writer also writes for the site). Also, it mentions the word "Baldi" once. As for the others, there is no evidence that Pixel and Konbini are reliable sources, so it is likely safe to not use them in notability related discussions. Also take into consideration the things I pointed out about the lack of new information on the game, which is pretty key for the subject. NegativeMP1 18:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pixel and Konbini both have Wikipedia pages as they are decently known, but non-English, sources. Automaton is published by Active Gaming Media and is decently popular in Japan. Just because they are foreign sources does not mean they are not useable. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point isn't the fact they're foreign sources, that was never the point, we have sources like Jeuxvideo that are considered perfectly usable here, it's the fact they're undiscussed here that slightly concerns me. Do the Wikis for those specific languages consider them reliable sources? I'm not saying they're completely unusable, just concerned about their usage for notability. NegativeMP1 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a borderline case where the sources are surprisingly shallow on independent commentary. Part of the ambiguity is that a WP:BEFORE doesn't yield any other reliable sources in WP:VG/S, so we need to evaluate several sources of variable depth and reliability for what they have to say about the game. The Kotaku articles, when taken together, do offer some brief assessments of the game, and comment on the cultural impact of the game. For the Game Developer article, I disagree with the characterisation that Couture has not provided his own perspective on the game - the article does thoughtfully evaluate the effectiveness of the game's design, but it is mostly a primary interview source. Otherwise, I agree the article's current reliable secondary sources, including the Pocket Gamer and 4Players articles, offer marginal to no evaluative commentary on the game, and mostly read as a description. This sadly seems to also be the case with the suggested sources, particularly Automaton and Pixel, the reliability of which I have no idea. The page on Game Design Deep Dive is not significant coverage of the game in question, but a brief description of the game as an example of its use of a horror narrative device. That leaves very little breadth of independent coverage on this article that isn't a description of the game. I admit that I was surprised this game hasn't received more coverage. Happy to be proven wrong; I think all this article needs is another strong source or two to confidently say this enters general notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough significant coverage from reliable sources, IMO. Skyshifter ^talk 00:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide three examples? I'm still unsure of where to lean. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. [1] [2] [3] are significant coverage about Baldi's Basic, while [4] goes in detail about the development. [5] gives significant coverage to Baldi's Basics Plus, and [6] [7] to Baldi's Basics Classic, which are official versions of the game. [8] gives significant coverage to the game's popularity, which is also relevant. Skyshifter ^talk 18:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I'm still disappointed in the lack of actual critical reception, but it very clearly meets the notability guidelines by this point, which is what this discussion was for. It was also destubbed. I'll close this discussion as a withdrawal soon. NegativeMP1 08:13, 10 September 2023 (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.