The result was delete, as the consensus of the AfD participants is that notability has not been established by the sources provided. 28bytes ( talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply
(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This article is at Template talk:Did you know#Backyard Monsters, where reviewer Eisfbnore ( talk · contribs) asked, "What makes Facebook a reliable source?"
I have reviewed each of the sources to assess whether they enable the game to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Analysis of the sources in the article:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) – the review is written by "the99th" and the website's content is
user-generated. On page 6 of
http://s3.amazonaws.com/playthisthing/PlayThisThing_Writers_Manual.doc (linked to from
http://playthisthing.com/about-play-thing), the website provides instructions for "Supplying a Review to Us Via Email".
Because the website will not stand by the accuracy of the content it publishes, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".GAMEZEBO IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBSTANCE, ACCURACY OR OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON SUCH THE GAMEZEBO SITESS [ sic, AND [ sic SUCH THE GAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO.
Content from user-generated websites are unreliable. http://www.unigamesity.com/terms-of-use/ states:Do you love computer games more than any other type of games? Do you have strong, professional opinions and it also happens that you love writing (and are actually really good at it?) Would you like to be featured on Unigamesity and have your words and opinions read by tons of computer games fans? Then drop us a line at the following e-mail address and I’m sure we can work something out:
...
P.S. At the moment, I can’t offer any sort of payment for your hard work and I can’t guarantee that things will change in the future. However, if you want to have your content published on a high quality website and read by thousands of gamers all over the world, I’d love to help you make it happen!
This review fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information presented on the Website, which may include views, opinions and recommendations from third-party individuals.
I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!.
In a Google News Archive search, the sources are mainly press releases or unreliable sources. The best source I found was this article from the Manila Bulletin. After reading the article, I have found several red flags that indicate it is unreliable. The article states that Backyard Monsters is a "cool game from Zynga". However, Backyard Monsters is not from Zynga. According to AOL's games.com blog:
Backyard Monsters is from Kixeye, and Zynga is one of its competitors. This major factual inaccuracy casts doubt on the accuracy of the article. Furthermore, the Manila Bulletin article contains a number of typos:In response to growing list of hardcore-skewed military strategy games like Kabam's Kingdoms of Camelot and Backyard Monsters by Kixeye,
Zynga and Digital Chocolate have released Empires & Allies and Army Attack, respectively.
Based on the significant factual error and the typos, this particular article from
Manila Bulletin has not received
adequate editorial oversight and cannot be considered a reliable source that passes
Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I appreciate the work
Σ (
talk ·
contribs) has spent crafting this article. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by
Wikipedia:Notability, and because the article fails
Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article should be deleted.
Cunard (
talk)
06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The Guardian has an excellent reputation for fact-checking. The newspaper has published this disclaimer to absolve itself from any lawsuits ("To the extent permitted at law"). On the other hand, the Gamezebo website specifically states thatTo the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material. You must not rely on any statement we have published on guardian.co.uk without first taking specialist professional advice. Nothing in the material is provided for any specific purpose or at the request of any particular person.
This statement goes further than protecting the website's publishers against lawsuits. That Gamezebo explicitly states that it does not fact-check its articles strongly suggests that it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) replyGAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO.
A review of the article does not reveal anything that is overtly incorrect.
Disclaimers of publications generally do not say that no fact-checking is done. They usually note that while they do fact-check, they are fallible and should not be held liable for any errors. That is what distinguishes Gamezebo's disclaimer from the disclaimers of sources—including non-mainstream but reliable ones—that do fact-check. Cunard ( talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
While a typo or two can slip past a copyeditor or editor, I question how much editorial oversight an article has had when there are many typos. I maintain my position that the article should be deleted for failing the notability guidelines but I understand and respect your argument. Cunard ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) replyThis kind of commitment, as fickel as it may seem to those who have losts years to MMORPGS, is staggering for a social game.
Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? -- The Σ talk contribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
After the AfD is closed by an administrator, and if the AfD result is "delete", feel free to request userfication at WP:REFUND. Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Second, the guideline for film articles prohibits the inclusion of online polls because they are subject to " vote stacking and demographic skew". The page also states that "[p]olls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner" are acceptable additions. This film article rule about polls can also be applied to games. According to Facebook, Picaboum is a developer. I don't know if Picaboum can be considered a reliable source. However, the manner in which this online poll was carried out indicates that it could easily be subjected to vote stacking and demographic skew. I don't think winning this award, which is ultimately determined by an online poll, confers notability. Cunard ( talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Cunard ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, as the consensus of the AfD participants is that notability has not been established by the sources provided. 28bytes ( talk) 19:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC) reply
(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This article is at Template talk:Did you know#Backyard Monsters, where reviewer Eisfbnore ( talk · contribs) asked, "What makes Facebook a reliable source?"
I have reviewed each of the sources to assess whether they enable the game to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Analysis of the sources in the article:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link) – the review is written by "the99th" and the website's content is
user-generated. On page 6 of
http://s3.amazonaws.com/playthisthing/PlayThisThing_Writers_Manual.doc (linked to from
http://playthisthing.com/about-play-thing), the website provides instructions for "Supplying a Review to Us Via Email".
Because the website will not stand by the accuracy of the content it publishes, it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".GAMEZEBO IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUBSTANCE, ACCURACY OR OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON SUCH THE GAMEZEBO SITESS [ sic, AND [ sic SUCH THE GAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO.
Content from user-generated websites are unreliable. http://www.unigamesity.com/terms-of-use/ states:Do you love computer games more than any other type of games? Do you have strong, professional opinions and it also happens that you love writing (and are actually really good at it?) Would you like to be featured on Unigamesity and have your words and opinions read by tons of computer games fans? Then drop us a line at the following e-mail address and I’m sure we can work something out:
...
P.S. At the moment, I can’t offer any sort of payment for your hard work and I can’t guarantee that things will change in the future. However, if you want to have your content published on a high quality website and read by thousands of gamers all over the world, I’d love to help you make it happen!
This review fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".We do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information presented on the Website, which may include views, opinions and recommendations from third-party individuals.
I have done much research about this website and have been unable to find any sufficient reliable sources about it. My searches included trawling through several pages of Google results, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Yahoo!.
In a Google News Archive search, the sources are mainly press releases or unreliable sources. The best source I found was this article from the Manila Bulletin. After reading the article, I have found several red flags that indicate it is unreliable. The article states that Backyard Monsters is a "cool game from Zynga". However, Backyard Monsters is not from Zynga. According to AOL's games.com blog:
Backyard Monsters is from Kixeye, and Zynga is one of its competitors. This major factual inaccuracy casts doubt on the accuracy of the article. Furthermore, the Manila Bulletin article contains a number of typos:In response to growing list of hardcore-skewed military strategy games like Kabam's Kingdoms of Camelot and Backyard Monsters by Kixeye,
Zynga and Digital Chocolate have released Empires & Allies and Army Attack, respectively.
Based on the significant factual error and the typos, this particular article from
Manila Bulletin has not received
adequate editorial oversight and cannot be considered a reliable source that passes
Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I appreciate the work
Σ (
talk ·
contribs) has spent crafting this article. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by
Wikipedia:Notability, and because the article fails
Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article should be deleted.
Cunard (
talk)
06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
The Guardian has an excellent reputation for fact-checking. The newspaper has published this disclaimer to absolve itself from any lawsuits ("To the extent permitted at law"). On the other hand, the Gamezebo website specifically states thatTo the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material. You must not rely on any statement we have published on guardian.co.uk without first taking specialist professional advice. Nothing in the material is provided for any specific purpose or at the request of any particular person.
This statement goes further than protecting the website's publishers against lawsuits. That Gamezebo explicitly states that it does not fact-check its articles strongly suggests that it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) replyGAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO.
A review of the article does not reveal anything that is overtly incorrect.
Disclaimers of publications generally do not say that no fact-checking is done. They usually note that while they do fact-check, they are fallible and should not be held liable for any errors. That is what distinguishes Gamezebo's disclaimer from the disclaimers of sources—including non-mainstream but reliable ones—that do fact-check. Cunard ( talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) reply
While a typo or two can slip past a copyeditor or editor, I question how much editorial oversight an article has had when there are many typos. I maintain my position that the article should be deleted for failing the notability guidelines but I understand and respect your argument. Cunard ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) replyThis kind of commitment, as fickel as it may seem to those who have losts years to MMORPGS, is staggering for a social game.
Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? -- The Σ talk contribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply
After the AfD is closed by an administrator, and if the AfD result is "delete", feel free to request userfication at WP:REFUND. Cunard ( talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Second, the guideline for film articles prohibits the inclusion of online polls because they are subject to " vote stacking and demographic skew". The page also states that "[p]olls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner" are acceptable additions. This film article rule about polls can also be applied to games. According to Facebook, Picaboum is a developer. I don't know if Picaboum can be considered a reliable source. However, the manner in which this online poll was carried out indicates that it could easily be subjected to vote stacking and demographic skew. I don't think winning this award, which is ultimately determined by an online poll, confers notability. Cunard ( talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply
Cunard ( talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply