Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator

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

I simply do not think this article has the material to stand on its own, and its status on meeting WP:THREE is iffy. Even if it did, there is extremely limited information on this subject (even from primary sources) that makes it to where I do not see a substantial article coming out of it. Furthermore, the article is a complete mess possibly beyond saving. I believe the information of this game to be better off as part of the series article.

To analyze the Reception section:
 * Touch Arcade isn't actually a review outside of the stars rating. It's also very brief.
 * The IGN reception bit is a listicle of no substance.
 * Rock Paper Shotgun is decent.
 * CD-Action can not be verified after me and some folks at WP:DISCORD attempted to find anywhere to purchase the issue the review is in (I assume good faith in the editor that added it in though, so I'd still count it, it just can't be checked in this discussion).
 * While this specific author at GameCrate seems okay, the discussion that decided the status of GameCrate concluded that it should only be used as a last resort (even after this particular author was brought up), and thus I think should be thrown out the window for notability (the discussion even somewhat alluded to this).

Even if we give GameCrate the benefit of the doubt here and THREE was met, I don't believe there to be enough material to make a substantial article as stated above. Searches for additional reviews also turned up nothing, what there is now is all there is. λ Negative  MP1  03:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ  Negative  MP1  03:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Metacritic lists CD-Action as having given the game a full review. Perhaps it could not be verified, but I don't believe Metacritic would have a reason to lie about something like that. And that plus a review in TouchArcade (that is short-ish but still a review) and Rock Paper Shotgun means the game presumably meets GNG criteria weakly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Touch Arcade review being short is the problem. Sure, you can list the not-even-a-sentence-long brief quote and the star rating, but there's no material in it that could be incorporated into a Reception section that follows something like WP:RECEPTION. It's incredibly unsubstantial. λ Negative  MP1  03:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge. Very light in sigcov, relies a lot on a very situational source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge. The TouchArcade source offers little critical commentary or any meaningful observations, it merely repeats information about the game's mechanics and cannot be considered a review aside from its base rating. And the IGN post doesn't have substance either. The Rock Paper Shotgun article provides a small amount of critical commentary and coverage, but it isn't much of a review rather than the author saying "this game is scary". Although the GameCrate source is listed as situational through its author, I see that it is very weak on notability. All in all, I see the article barely meeting the threshold for GNG but the severe lack of proper critical coverage means that the article has little room to stand on its own, though the salvageable material could easily be included at Five Nights at Freddy's. I think we can treat this as similar to a case with a video game character article, which live and die by the quality of their reception sections. If critics are not willing to adequately cover this video game, it can easily be included as part of a relevant article same as characters being merged into related lists. The commonly used essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES also says that articles cannot really stand on their own without significant critical commentary. The essay also says Avoid creating spinout articles that are short or redundant. Any distinct features of a derivative release that can be verified can always be covered in the parent article  The Night Watch     (talk)   05:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's as an appropriate source. My rationale is per The Night Watch, but none of the merging !votes specified where this would go to. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to the FNAF article as suggested above. I agree the CD Action should be considered as per WP:NEXIST, but it's not currently verifiable and there's no way of knowing if that review was even significant coverage of the game. The TouchArcade article describes the game without any critical commentary as stated above. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2024 (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.