This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article was accepted on 11 April 2013 by reviewer
Avram (
talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
apps 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.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
It is somewhat promotional, but not 100%. It seems to have some reliable sources talking about it and some decent funding. It should be edited to remove the tone, but not deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wiki12rt (
talk •
contribs)
08:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree that copyediting may be needed, but I see no reason to delete this article. I'd deem coverage in CNET, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. enough to show notability and warrant inclusion. In the technology world you won't always find coverage in more mainstream sources, as much of the time this is of little interest to general public, whereas it may be of great interest to tech community. E.g.
OMGPop has but one ref to NY Times, but multiple from TechCrunch and VentureBeat. The point is, along with CNET, these sources would typically be considered "mainstream" coverage for a startup. —
MusikAnimaltalk18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Controversy section
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
The newly-added controversy section, added by an anonymous editor with a recent vandalism history (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Walking_Dead%3A_Road_to_Survival&type=revision&diff=813645030&oldid=813596561), does reference a legitimate story on actual community dissatisfaction, but the bulk of the section is unsourced and of questionable relevance to the primary subject of the article. As an employee of the subject of the article, I would prefer not to make changes myself that would look like whitewashing, but the section should be edited down to nothing, or just to the one Venture Beat article.
Avram (
talk)
06:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Implemented I've rewritten the section so it constitutes information from the single source that the previous editor had used, and information which was not sourced has been removed. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The mention of Scopely buying Stumble Guys is provided without a source. I deleted this yesterday (at the time of this talk notice) for lack of source and overall lack of professionalism. If it did happen, please give a source.
209.141.121.107 (
talk)
15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Adding on to this, I did do a Google search and found news articles which do say that the game has been bought, so I will figure out how to cite a source and add that source. Sorry if I wasted anyone's time, I was just fixing what I thought was a un-sourced opinion.
209.141.121.107 (
talk)
20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article was accepted on 11 April 2013 by reviewer
Avram (
talk·contribs).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
apps 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.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
It is somewhat promotional, but not 100%. It seems to have some reliable sources talking about it and some decent funding. It should be edited to remove the tone, but not deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wiki12rt (
talk •
contribs)
08:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree that copyediting may be needed, but I see no reason to delete this article. I'd deem coverage in CNET, TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. enough to show notability and warrant inclusion. In the technology world you won't always find coverage in more mainstream sources, as much of the time this is of little interest to general public, whereas it may be of great interest to tech community. E.g.
OMGPop has but one ref to NY Times, but multiple from TechCrunch and VentureBeat. The point is, along with CNET, these sources would typically be considered "mainstream" coverage for a startup. —
MusikAnimaltalk18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Controversy section
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
The newly-added controversy section, added by an anonymous editor with a recent vandalism history (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Walking_Dead%3A_Road_to_Survival&type=revision&diff=813645030&oldid=813596561), does reference a legitimate story on actual community dissatisfaction, but the bulk of the section is unsourced and of questionable relevance to the primary subject of the article. As an employee of the subject of the article, I would prefer not to make changes myself that would look like whitewashing, but the section should be edited down to nothing, or just to the one Venture Beat article.
Avram (
talk)
06:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Implemented I've rewritten the section so it constitutes information from the single source that the previous editor had used, and information which was not sourced has been removed. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 03:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The mention of Scopely buying Stumble Guys is provided without a source. I deleted this yesterday (at the time of this talk notice) for lack of source and overall lack of professionalism. If it did happen, please give a source.
209.141.121.107 (
talk)
15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Adding on to this, I did do a Google search and found news articles which do say that the game has been bought, so I will figure out how to cite a source and add that source. Sorry if I wasted anyone's time, I was just fixing what I thought was a un-sourced opinion.
209.141.121.107 (
talk)
20:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply