Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Five Nights at Freddy's. Daniel (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Five Nights at Freddy's: Special Delivery

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While some sources do discuss this game, most of it is either short articles of a couple paragraphs that don't say very much, and one developer interview from VentureBeat. So, though there are sources technically, the game has | zero critic reviews on Metacritic, and none of the sources that exist give any sort of opinion on the game. Due to this, this game basically can not have a Reception section, and this is why I am bringing it here. I feel that the information for this game is better off summarized in a different article (such as the series article) as it, in my opinion, simply doesn't have the critical commentary to stand on its own. Negative MP1  17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Negative  MP1  17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep My gut reaction upon reading this was "keep," but let's take a look. The article seems well written. I'm figuring the issue is notability. Bloody Disgusting! and Touch Arcade could establish notability, but they discuss the game before its release. I'm feeling better about Android Police. CBR could be okay. I will add it to the article now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Android Police is considered unreliable at WP:VG/S and CBR is considered situational, and both are from Valnet, which can't be used to demonstrate notability. Also, that isn't the complete problem here, the problem is the complete lack of critic reviews, which basically makes the whole article fall apart. Negative  MP1  21:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern here is that this game has been out for over three years. There has been plenty of time for there to be a review or two. The CBR source is an interview. It's my understanding that interviews are good for some details but not notability. While I disagree that this makes the whole article fall apart, perhaps it is worth removing Android Police. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's. Doesn't seem independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's. No significant secondary coverage. To address the nominator and above discussion, I think reliable review sources are generally necessary to establish notability for games. Reviews are secondary coverage that evidence independent perspectives on the content of the game. This is opposed to primary sources, which include announcements or updates which are generally echoed by sources from publisher press releases: i.e or interviews that are very helpful for article content but again are taken from the word of the developer. There are probably some cases where sourcing and commentary is so good that a non-reviewed title is still notable, maybe an upcoming or cancelled game with immense speculation and commentary over its development. But generally I think without reviews, these articles tend to fail. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. The article simply can't stand on its own without reviews, and the essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES says that games with articles typically have significant and critical commentary. When there is only enough coverage to say "this game exists" and a primary source that gives a bit more about the development philosophy from CBR (which is a part of Valnet which doesn't even provide notability per WP:VG/S), this article clearly is not notable enough but could at least have its material salvaged through a merger.  The Night Watch     (talk)   00:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.