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.
AfC accepted during IRC discussion of whether the sources indicated notability or not.
I'm (obviously) of the opinion that they don't, and here's why:
148Apps and Big Red Barrel are both non-notable non-selective app review sites with no apparent editorial oversight or particular journalistic cachet. 148 uses affiliate links in their reviews, so they have an incentive to review anything and everything utterly unselectively. Big Red Barrel doesn't even have an About page. In my opinion a review on these sites doesn't contribute anything to notability.
TouchArcade looks like it has an article, but it's a redirect to MacRumors, of which it is a sister site. MacRumors is a rumor/news aggregator for stories about Mac. By its nature it's unreliable. I can't see its sister site having any better editorial standards.
Side note: TouchArcade is listed at
WP:VG/RS, but in my opinion that's absurd. There's no about page, no editorial policy or information about their contributors, and clicking Product Reviews leads you to
https://toucharcade.com/category/amazon-item-of-the-day/. If that isn't flagrant advertorial content I don't know what is.
Pocket Gamer is the only one that I would consider even marginally reliable. At least they have a content policy and an editorial team.
On to the awards! As we all know, not all awards are created equal. Winning a notable award (ie, an award that sources cover independently as a point of interest) indicates notability, and usually generates it when third-party sources cover the win. But if an award itself isn't notable, and nobody covers someone winning it, it can hardly be said to be an indicator of notability.
So what do we have? We have the company Force of Habit winning a TIGA business award for "Best new IP" in 2013, and we have the game winning best art design at the 2014 Intel Level Up Game Designer Contest. Neither award is notable in and of itself, nobody covered the wins in independent media, and the TIGA award is for the company, not the game.
In summation: reviews from unreliable/non-notable websites and two non-notable awards. One review from Pocket Gamer isn't enough to hang the article on. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)08:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
My accept of this article was based primarily on the outcome of
this AfD I submitted back in 2016, which had substantially less sourcing and yet still ended in a keep, since most agreed that reviews were enough to pass
WP:GNG. I'm genuinely curious to see what the opinions of others are, since apps are such a nebulous area in terms of sourcing.
As an aside, I'm really confused behind some of the decisions on
WP:VG/S. TouchArcade is listed after several discussions despite having an entire section dedicated to Amazon affiliate farming, and yet Android Police is blocked since it doesn't have an "identifiable editorial team with experience in gaming"? Huh?
Nathan2055talk -
contribs08:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Touch Arcade is on the list because of
this discussion. One might consider reviewing the links provided in the far right column to establish why items are on the list in the future. --
Izno (
talk)
04:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Izno, I did, actually. I'm of the opinion that that discussion is worth revisiting. The Guardian's list of websites mentions Pocket Gamer, not TouchArcade (nobody checked?) and AdAge refers to it in the context of how best to position one's own app to get reviews (not a great indicator of journalistic reliability). It does seem to have been referred to by other sources, but it's interesting to note (and I believe
Nathan2055 did more thorough checking on this) that those kinds of referrals from reliable sites drop off a cliff after about 2015. I'm wondering if the site took a dive in quality between then and now, because what I see now does not inspire confidence in me. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)07:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I made a pass through this, removing the questionable references and some vagueness, and narrowed the game down to a single genre.
Dgpop (
talk)
18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, because no one pointed this out yet, the Toast Time page was created by one of the developers. They declared a COI, but they still picked the reviewer blurbs to use.
Dgpop (
talk)
18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There seems to be coverage per Touch Arcade (until there is a discussion which overrules the former decision, this stays as reliable for now), Hardcore Gamer, Pocket Gamer and supported by The Guardian and Digital Spy. Even if we discount 148Apps (but it is situational one). Passes
WP:GNG.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
01:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
AfC accepted during IRC discussion of whether the sources indicated notability or not.
I'm (obviously) of the opinion that they don't, and here's why:
148Apps and Big Red Barrel are both non-notable non-selective app review sites with no apparent editorial oversight or particular journalistic cachet. 148 uses affiliate links in their reviews, so they have an incentive to review anything and everything utterly unselectively. Big Red Barrel doesn't even have an About page. In my opinion a review on these sites doesn't contribute anything to notability.
TouchArcade looks like it has an article, but it's a redirect to MacRumors, of which it is a sister site. MacRumors is a rumor/news aggregator for stories about Mac. By its nature it's unreliable. I can't see its sister site having any better editorial standards.
Side note: TouchArcade is listed at
WP:VG/RS, but in my opinion that's absurd. There's no about page, no editorial policy or information about their contributors, and clicking Product Reviews leads you to
https://toucharcade.com/category/amazon-item-of-the-day/. If that isn't flagrant advertorial content I don't know what is.
Pocket Gamer is the only one that I would consider even marginally reliable. At least they have a content policy and an editorial team.
On to the awards! As we all know, not all awards are created equal. Winning a notable award (ie, an award that sources cover independently as a point of interest) indicates notability, and usually generates it when third-party sources cover the win. But if an award itself isn't notable, and nobody covers someone winning it, it can hardly be said to be an indicator of notability.
So what do we have? We have the company Force of Habit winning a TIGA business award for "Best new IP" in 2013, and we have the game winning best art design at the 2014 Intel Level Up Game Designer Contest. Neither award is notable in and of itself, nobody covered the wins in independent media, and the TIGA award is for the company, not the game.
In summation: reviews from unreliable/non-notable websites and two non-notable awards. One review from Pocket Gamer isn't enough to hang the article on. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)08:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
My accept of this article was based primarily on the outcome of
this AfD I submitted back in 2016, which had substantially less sourcing and yet still ended in a keep, since most agreed that reviews were enough to pass
WP:GNG. I'm genuinely curious to see what the opinions of others are, since apps are such a nebulous area in terms of sourcing.
As an aside, I'm really confused behind some of the decisions on
WP:VG/S. TouchArcade is listed after several discussions despite having an entire section dedicated to Amazon affiliate farming, and yet Android Police is blocked since it doesn't have an "identifiable editorial team with experience in gaming"? Huh?
Nathan2055talk -
contribs08:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Touch Arcade is on the list because of
this discussion. One might consider reviewing the links provided in the far right column to establish why items are on the list in the future. --
Izno (
talk)
04:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Izno, I did, actually. I'm of the opinion that that discussion is worth revisiting. The Guardian's list of websites mentions Pocket Gamer, not TouchArcade (nobody checked?) and AdAge refers to it in the context of how best to position one's own app to get reviews (not a great indicator of journalistic reliability). It does seem to have been referred to by other sources, but it's interesting to note (and I believe
Nathan2055 did more thorough checking on this) that those kinds of referrals from reliable sites drop off a cliff after about 2015. I'm wondering if the site took a dive in quality between then and now, because what I see now does not inspire confidence in me. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)07:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I made a pass through this, removing the questionable references and some vagueness, and narrowed the game down to a single genre.
Dgpop (
talk)
18:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, because no one pointed this out yet, the Toast Time page was created by one of the developers. They declared a COI, but they still picked the reviewer blurbs to use.
Dgpop (
talk)
18:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There seems to be coverage per Touch Arcade (until there is a discussion which overrules the former decision, this stays as reliable for now), Hardcore Gamer, Pocket Gamer and supported by The Guardian and Digital Spy. Even if we discount 148Apps (but it is situational one). Passes
WP:GNG.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
01:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)reply
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.