This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article was accepted on 23 September 2021 by reviewer Chess (talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
Not done Only administrators can do it because the article is not notable and should not be moved to article space. That is why the AFC is declined, and nothing has changed. -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfC acceptance
This might be a controversial one given the salting & what not but I believe I made the right move here. Pretty much none of the sources currently in the article were around at the time of the AfD. It looks like the subject is more likely than not to be notable at this point given the many independent reviews. I might be wrong and I apologize in advance if this gets AfD'd and it turns out I was wrong. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's notable enough for this article. Wikipedia isn't a place for random information added wherever the editor likes, everything needs to be here for a reason. This info may be included elsewhere, but whether it'll be included here or not is debatable. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to "(the) Baldi's Basics (series)"?
While the original Baldi game is the most popular in media, Baldi's Basics Classic Remastered and Baldi's Basics Plus are (becoming) way bigger than the original game (for instance, the entire "ARG" and secret messages a year after BBCR's release), so I want to propose to make this article about the series themselves. QwertyPc Game17 (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it would make more sense to create a separate article under the name "Baldi's Basics (series)", since this article has enough sources to show that it's noteworthy enough to be covered here. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koolaidpedia: I'm not sure if you are reading my edit summaries or not, but to reiterate, this article is not about the Baldi's Basics series. It is about the original game, nothing more, and nothing less. Furthermore, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources to cover the series as a whole, so giving weight towards it is WP:UNDUE. Also, I don't think Baldi's Basics qualifies to be a media franchise when it only officially comprises of video games - a media franchise would probably go well beyond that. At most, it would be a video game series. But that's off topic and not the focus here. The focus is that the article is about the game. Not the series. Introducing the article as about the franchise in the lead sentence is blatantly misleading.
I am attempting to avoid an edit war here, but so far, you don't seem to be paying attention to my concerns or understanding that your edits are not constructive. I hope that you actually see this message and are willing to discuss the matter. λNegativeMP119:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how that's necessary either. It's more like trivia. And, again, there's no media franchise to speak of. The existence of plushies isn't enough. You'd also need reliable sources discussing that there's a franchise in the first place. Otherwise it'd be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. λNegativeMP101:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By media, I'm pretty sure Negative means stuff like TV and movies. Baldi has only had a few video games, that and merchandise alone likely do not count as a media franchise. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 01:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Negative's statement. If something can't be properly sourced, then it should not be mentioned (per WP:N). I think the article should solely focus on the original video game with small mentions of successors. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've performed a search and found little to no sources that could be used for an article like that. An article about the whole series just isn't that noteworthy. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 08:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even I agree with you all! The intresting thing I found out in both already existing and in research is that theres actually enough info for all of that, oddly enough! SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_%22BIG_GOMEZ%22.svg)
