Talk:Bad End Theater

Re: Sources being unreliable

@Yoblyblob: Doing a source analysis of the article:

• Source 1 (Game Developer) - Reliable? Y Significant coverage? Y Secondary? N
• Source 2 (TheXboxHub) - Reliable? N (WP:VG/S) Significant coverage? N Secondary? Y
• Source 3 (Nintendo Everything) - Reliable? N Significant coverage? N Secondary? Y
• Source 4 (PC Gamer) - Reliable? Y Significant coverage? Y Secondary? Y
• Source 5 (True Achievements) - Reliable? ? Significant coverage? N Secondary? Y
• Source 6 (Xbox Era) - Reliable? ? Significant coverage? Y Secondary? Y
• Source 7 (Gaming Trend) - Reliable? ? Significant coverage? N Secondary? Y
• Source 8 (The Gamer) - Reliable? Y Significant coverage? N Secondary? Y

Overall this indicates that there is only one reliable, significant secondary source that counts towards notability out of the three that is usually preferred. If we consider Xbox Era reliable, which does seem that it might be, that is still only two sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, appreciate this, thank you. Uncertainty about sources is mostly why I submitted this through AfC Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that some AfC reviewers don't actually check what the reliable sources are and rubber stamp articles that seem OK. In fact, I wasn't even aware that New Page Patrollers automatically had the right to review AfC pages. Personally, I think they should have to go through the same probationary period as everyone else, since New Page Patrol has nothing to do with doing a notability deep dive and only involves a cursory check for obvious notability failures.

The only other source I found was this review. The problem is, I'm not convinced it's significant coverage as it doesn't contain any opinions. Therefore I don't believe the game will ever be notable, but if you'd prefer to undergo an AfD discussion that may or may not end in your favor, rather than voluntarily re-draftifying, userfying, or deleting the article, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I would be alright with re-draftifying, planning to wait 5-6 months, then doing another check around for any new source. Even assuming the XboxEra source would be considered reliable and qualify for GNG, that's only two sources. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this at such length though. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Which I have just done. Will resubmit if more sources or reliable reviews come up! Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm hi, just a question, could this potentially count as a source meeting GNG? It is listed on Metacritic as a critic review, but not sure if critic reviews from Metacritic would be mostly considered reliable rather than self-published or something. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

There's also a very in-depth review here, but again not sure on status as a solid source. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to submit them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources for consideration, Final Weapon lists out its staff so I feel like it may have a better chance of being reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that. Thanks for your help! Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

A confrontation between the main cast

• ... that Bad End Theater uses a cute visual style to portray tragic death without showing gruesome details?

• Source: Couture, Joel. "The cascading consequences of Bad End Theater's parallel narratives". Game Developer. Retrieved 2 August 2025. Supporting text: "Cuteness is my specialty! I think having cute characters makes the darker endings more approachable and "safe". I wanted all the emotions of a tragic death without having to show any gruesome details - for me, it's more effective if it remains abstract or stylized."

• ALT1: ... that Bad End Theater has 41 bad endings? Source: NomnomNami (2022-02-22), BAD END THEATER art collection. Requires owning Bad End Theater to access. Supporting text: "41 bad endings... it's a strange final number to land on, isn't it?"
• Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by The Sophocrat (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Sophocrat (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC).

• Comment The article seems to fail WP:DYKCITE as Final Weapon was determined likely unreliable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Final Weapon. The page relies heavily on Final Weapon as a source, and in fact without it even seemingly fails WP:GNG entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Final Weapon was determined likely unreliable at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Final Weapon. What do you mean? Only one out of four editors argued it was "not a high-quality source". The site lists its editorial staff and its reviews have been featured elsewhere in the industry. As for meeting WP:GNG, the article cites a thesis, the Final Weapon Review, and a PCGamer review. Those are three independent, reliable sources that significantly cover the article subject, so the subject meets WP:GNG. Sophocrat (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have added a new reference, a review by a Spanish journalist. Sophocrat (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's more complex than just one of four editors arguing it's unreliable. The ones arguing it was unreliable offered way more evidence in support of that fact, including User:Captain Galaxy's numerous points and User:Sergecross73 in the previous 2024 discussion about the site. At the very least, its reliability is in heavy doubt due to the writers' lack of credentials. I am not sure why Anait Games should be considered reliable either, it appears to share similar issues. To be clear, reliability is not a negotiable part of WP:GNG and if you pull a source out of nowhere that isn't in WP:VG/S or WP:Perennial sources, etc. you will need some solid proof that it should actually be taken seriously, especially with the advent of AI and misinformation online. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

With regards to the Marta Trivi page, it was essentially just created and I am unsure if it passes WP:NBIO. She appears to be more of a freelance journalist than someone with industry credentials so I'm not sure you can pull out the "this person is a journalist" argument to say that the site is reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand the policies. Thank you for your patience. Looking again, there's an article by Gry OnLine, a reliable source per WP:VG/S (make sure to click the "Read more" to see it fully). Sophocrat (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

There's also a page discussing the game, comparable in size to the PCGamer review, from this thesis (plaintext link) from Hacettepe University (it also dedicates a subchapter to another of the dev's games, but I digress). It 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]). The GryOnLine article was written in 2021, this thesis in 2024, and the other thesis I cite in 2025. This demonstrates sustained coverage that has outlived the game's initial release. I do believe this subject is notable and evidently an article can be written about it—it's just a bit niche (and per WP:DYKCITE, The use of multiple sources is generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics). Sophocrat (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The Gry Online page bills itself as a "game description" with zero independent commentary, so I don't think it would fall under WP:SECONDARY. Per that page, "A secondary source provides thought and reflection [...]". GNG requires the sources in question to be secondary ones. I am also concerned whether the thesis page would have sufficient commentary independent of pure descriptions of the content. It may be worth removing the unreliable sources and expanding the reception; if the sources are insufficient, it will clearly show in the lack of content that can be gleaned for the section, and vice-versa. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Well then, I will expand the Reception section with uncontested reliable sources. Thank you for your time. Sophocrat (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support ALT1. The first one can be seen as having promotional language. The second one is actually good trivia.

Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)