Talk:Scopely

Contested deletion
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)
 * Declined speedy tag deletion (#g11) as article's tone is not promotional enough to warrant deletion under that critera (it wasn't written like an advertisement), just needs some editing on the tone, as User:Wiki12rt said. AngelOfSadness  talk  11:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversy section
The newly-added controversy section, added by an anonymous editor with a recent vandalism history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

✅ 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)


 * Thanks for taking a look and resolving! Avram (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Stumble Guys source?
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)


 * 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)
 * All of the respones to this should be directed to me as I was the one behind the edits. The Shamming Man has appeared. 19:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)