Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad End Theater

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Bad End Theater

edit

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

Bad End Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had a fairly lengthy debate about the notability of this article in its talk page and DYK nomination page, but I am now fully convinced that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only obvious reliable, significant (just barely) coverage is the PC Gamer source, with others being either, primary, unreliable, trivial/directories or Valnet. Final Weapon isn't likely a reliable website. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:The Sophocrat
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
PC Gamer review
   Magazine has no relation to developer.   Listed as reliable for this area at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.   5 paragraphs about the game. ✔ Yes
Wellesley College thesis (plain text link)
   Author has no relation to developer.   Written for the author's Honors in Media Arts and Sciences. It was advised by 4 thesis advisers (qualified people from the college).   630-word chapter discussing the game. ✔ Yes
  Company and author have no relation to developer.   The review author studied Journalism and Media Management and seems to have experience in journalism. The site is used plenty at the German Wikipedia and dozens of times at enwiki.   Review is entirely about the video game. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

These other sources are only partially useful towards GNG, but they support the stronger sources:

Source assessment table prepared by User:The Sophocrat
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
  Author has no relation to developer.   From Hacettepe University. Thesis was supervised by doctor Elif Varol Ergen, who seems to be a recognized specialist in the field (eg by this art magazine article) (as preferred by WP:THESIS [If possible, use theses that have been [...] supervised by recognized specialists in the field]). ~ It only dedicates a page to the game. It also dedicates a subchapter to another of the developer's games, but I digress. ~ Partial
  Company and author have no relation to developer.   WP:VG/RS states about TheGamer that "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets". The author of this particular article has a degree in Art and Game Design. ~ Both articles talk little about the video game. For what it's worth, the first one states "The developer, NomnomNami, is well known for bringing video game stories centered around the LGBTQ+ community, and Bad End Theater puts a unique twist on lesbian representation in games." Again per WP:VG/RS, "Opinions presented in editorials, reviews, or list entries that have significant coverage may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources." ~ Partial
  Website has no relation to developer. ~ WP:VALNET calls it situational, noting that "Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas.". Like TheGamer, it "may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources.". ~ Both articles talk little about the video game, though they do give a bit of interpretation (such as "Bad End Theater oozes visual style, setting itself apart from the usual visual novel offerings" in the first one and "[Bad End Theater] is still a good place for beginners to get a feel for what an excellent and engaging visual novel should be like" in the second one). ~ Partial
  Magazine has no relation to developer. ~ Was recently discussed at the video game reliable sources noticeboard and found to be situational at best. Their top staff have qualifications and/or significant experience, but most of the rest don't. A shame given the article's thoroughness.   Review discusses the video game in length. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There's a couple more potentially-useful reviews (eg this French one) but I haven't finished verifying their reliability.

As I stated at the DYK nomination, I do believe this subject is notable and evidently an article can be written about it—it's just a bit niche. We have three sources counting towards GNG and some more that are partially useful in demonstrating notability, such as the Turkish thesis stating the game "is known for its complex plots" and TheGamer calling the developer "well known for bringing video game stories centered around the LGBTQ+ community". And per WP:DYKCITE, The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. Sophocrat (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. If you have doubts I would consider taking them to WT:VG/S. I'm only really familiar with PC Gamer and (to a lesser extent) Final Weapon so I can guarantee those, at least, are reliable. Gommeh 📖   🎮 05:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the thesis counts towards GNG. Per WP:THESIS, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This does not appear to have had such influence. The 2nd table marks ones as partial when they are clearly a "no" due to WP:VALNET. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a doubt regarding WP:THESIS. It states If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties (emphasis mine) which implies that you could use theses that don't fulfill any of those criteria (so an uncited, unreviewed thesis). However, it then states in the same paragraph that Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence (emphasis mine) as you noted. That much-higher requirement seems to contradict the relatively lax guideline I first cited. Anyhow, I believe the fact that the thesis I cited was supervised by a recognized specialist in the field gives it credence for this purpose. Sophocrat (talk) (from ~2025-36952-13 (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
The thesis appears to be an undergraduate thesis, which would clearly not be reliable under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Wellesley doesn't offer graduate programs. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the PC Gamer and ORF FM4 articles, which are solid. The Final Weapon review is pretty thorough, but it's unclear who it's by. I wouldn't count the dissertations or lists towards notability. The page doesn't read as overly promotional to me. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bad_End_Theater&oldid=1325516743"