Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters


 * 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.

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)

Backyard Monsters

 * – ( View AfD View log )



Note: This article is at Template talk:Did you know, where reviewer asked, "What makes Facebook a reliable source?"

I have reviewed each of the sources to assess whether they enable the game to pass Notability, Verifiability, and Identifying reliable sources.

Analysis of the sources in the article:    – Facebook is not a reliable source.  –  AppData is a website that provides data about Facebook Apps. Tantamount to a directory listing, the website does not establish notability because it is not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.  –  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".   – at first glance, Gamezebo appears to be a reliable source that establishes notability. However, the website's terms of service page, http://www.gamezebo.com/terms, states: Because the website will not stand by the accuracy of the content it publishes, it fails Verifiability, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".   – a forum from Kixeye, the developer and publisher, is not a third-party reliable source that establishes notability.  – Unigamesity accepts user-submitted reviews. http://www.unigamesity.com/write-for-us/ states: Content from user-generated websites are unreliable. http://www.unigamesity.com/terms-of-use/ states: This review fails Verifiability which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".   – while reliable, the article is primarily about games on Facebook. On page 1 of the article, the author discusses CitiVille, FarmVille, and FIFA Superstars. On page 2 of the article, the author discusses Kingdoms of Camelot, Dragons of Atlantis, and Glory of Rome. The third and final page of the article is when Backyard Monsters is first mentioned. The discussion about Backyard Monsters is largely confined to Casual Collective CEO Will Harbin's commentary. In a Gamasutra article that uses several companies and numerous games to discuss gaming on Facebook, the subject does not receive significant coverage.  – a forum from Kixeye, the developer and publisher, is not a third-party reliable source that establishes notability.  – a forum from Kixeye, the developer and publisher, is not a third-party reliable source that establishes notability.  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: 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 Verifiability. I appreciate the work has spent crafting this article. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Notability, and because the article fails Verifiability, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "additive" instead of "addictive"
 * 2) "differet" instead of "different
 * 3) "kinda" instead of "kind of"
 * 4) "your ready" instead of "you're ready"
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —-- The Σ talkcontribs  07:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With regards Gamezebo, the disclaimer you highlight is of the "covering our ass" kind found on other journalistic sites: c.f. Guardian ("To the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material...") Gamezebo is currently checked off as usable at WP:VG/RS. Also, I applaud you for your formatting. This AfD should be framed. Marasmusine (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that Gamezebo's listing at WP:VG/RS should be revised to unreliable. A paragraph of The Guardian disclaimer is: "To 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." 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 that "GAMEZEBO SITES ARE IN NO WAY INVESTIGATED, MONITORED OR CHECKED FOR ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS BY GAMEZEBO." 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 Verifiability, which requires sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Cunard (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the excellent book written by the nominator. There's really only one source that can be counted as reliable (Gamezebo, as per Marasmusine above), and that in no way establishes the notability of this game.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Gamezebo is a reliable source. See my response to Maramusine. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe the Gamezebo and Play This Thing sources are enough to pass notability. Gamezebo is a well-established casual review site and I see no reason to discount it because it doesn't claim the same level of scrutiny as a scientific journal. This is a videogame, not the reproductive cycle of ants, Nature don't do game reviews. "The99th" is Patrick Dugan, the second in command of Play This Thing, which is run by Greg Costikyan, both men have featured in magazine articles on indie gaming in magazines like Games TM because of their experience with the subject. Someoneanother 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gamezebo states that it does not fact-check its articles so it directly fails Verifiability. Verifiability does not require sources with the same level of scrutiny as a scientific journal but it does require sources that do fact-checking. Having read the review by Patrick Dugan, I don't consider it enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you see anything in the article you feel is factually incorrect? I'd say their disclaimer, while much stronger than a main-stream media source, is just that: a disclaimer. Anyone know if that was a proper English sentence?  The site has solid reviews and coverage and I've never seen a factually inaccurate issue there. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that it is a proper English sentence. 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)
 * Thanks for the English help, I sometimes get myself in weird constructs and can't find my way out :-). I fully agree you are right on the letter of the rule here.  I just believe they are over stating the situation (by a lot) as a legal maneuver.  It costs them nothing (who reads those things anyways?) and could be helpful.  Sad, but our legal system can be a bit of a mess.  On the net, if you lack the money for lawyers in arbitrary nations you should probably cover yourself as well as possible.  Sort of like the "not based on any living person" disclaimers when things pretty clear are.  Hobit (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's amusing that my reply to you inadvertently contained a typo. :) I've stricken out that pesky word. I take the meaning of the Gamezebo source as it's written. I agree that the website likely lacks money for lawyers in arbitrary nations. But I think that indicates the website also lacks sufficient funds to review the articles it publishes for accuracy. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Delete. I concur with the bulk of Cunard's excellent analysis. However, I recently offered an opinion in support of considering Play This Thing reliable at WT:VG/RS, so it'd be poor of me to change horses in midstream there; that makes one notability-establishing cite by my count.  The Gamasutra cite is just on the edge of what I would consider a true passing mention; I feel like it's worth something.  So, call it 1.5 notability-establishing cites, hence a week keep.  I tend to suspect that if it's managed to scrape together a bit of coverage, some tiny bit more will be along by and by, making deleting the article now something of a pointless exercise.  WP:POTENTIAL and all that. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about Play This Thing's being reliable. The article has numerous typos such as:
 * "prolly" instead of "probably"
 * "explicitedly" instead of "explicitly"
 * "fickel" instead of "fickle"
 * "losts" instead of ?
 * "spawing" instead of "spawning"
 * I also do not understand this sentence: "This kind of commitment, as fickel as it may seem to those who have losts years to MMORPGS, is staggering for a social game." 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)
 * Yeah, actually, I agree. Copyediting is a pretty low bar for editorial work, and failing at it that pervasively does call the entire level of editorial oversight into question.  I've switched my support for Play This Thing as an RS to oppose, and since that takes my count of notability-establishing cites from 1.5 to 0.5, which is clearly out of any kind of "keep" territory, changed my !vote above to delete. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone's grammar and spelling does not reflect their knowledge on their industry. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 07:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, and I brought that up in the WT:VG/RS thread. But I'd expect a managing editor with bad grammar and spelling who's trying to put out a serious publication to recognize his own issue and bring in somebody who can copyedit for him.  If editorial oversight consists of one guy who can't spell, that's not a strong editorial process. —chaos5023 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with chaos5023's comments. Spellcheck should have caught most of the spelling errors in that article. That a managing editor does not use spellcheck for one of his own articles indicates the website has a weak editorial process. Cunard (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK for me to move it to my userspace? -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 21:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From User talk:Cunard:
 * In the event of consensus being to delete. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 22:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the discussion about the reliability of the sources is ongoing, I ask that you let Articles for deletion/Backyard Monsters run to completion. The community may disagree with my assessment of the sources. 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)
 * Another reference for your review. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding that source. When I assess whether an award confers notability, I search for whether it has received secondary coverage. Has Backyard Monster's winning the award from Mochi received any secondary coverage—coverage independent from Backyard Monster's developer and Mochi Media? Cunard (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * this? -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 00:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Picaboum source links to a previous article by Picaboum which advertises online voting for the contest finalists. This calls into question Picaboum's affiliation with Mochi and whether it qualifies as a secondary source. 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)
 * I think you should add your assessment of the source to the AfD. -- The Σ talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">contribs 20:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.