Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counterfeit Monkey


 * 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 not delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is no consensus about whether to merge the content instead, but that can continue to be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  13:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Counterfeit Monkey

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable interactive fiction title. The article currently contains significant coverage from one secondary source. A WP:BEFORE yields one more reliable review from GameTrailers. But even with that considered, the article unfortunately falls short when taking a WP:THREE approach - if there is something else out there that is pretty clearly reliable significant coverage, happy to withdraw this nomination.

It may be said that the article inherits notability from its one award and IFDB status. The article's reliance on the IFDB is not in my view significant as a WP:USERG source. Even putting that aside, the cited #1 listings are based on an all-time poll of 223 users and a 2023 poll of 59 users - this is not particularly wide or significant.

It is hard to gauge the significance of the game receiving a XYZZY Award in 2012. It does have some clout. It seems to be a legacy community-voted award started by a defunct interactive fiction e-magazine and continued on a Wordpress blog by what I assume were original affiliates or community veterans. But the website lacks information and it doesn't seem to generate much external coverage outside that community, although I'm no expert in this space. I think the Wikipedia page overstates the importance of the awards based on how its sources are being quoted, but it's probably a needless rabbit hole to get deeper into that side of things. Open to views on whether these sort of awards do create an inheritable sort of notability of their own absent other coverage.

Thanks for any thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Emily Short per WP:ATD. I don't believe the game is notable, but it's worth a mention on her article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Obviously I'm more supportive to merge in this case. I am probably ignoring a separate AfM process for this sort of thing. Putting to the side whether WP:THREE is satisfied or not, do you have any views on whether community awards like XYZZY have a relationship to assessing subject notability? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a community award would fall under something like WP:USERG and would just be inadmissible to prove notability for anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks for the GameTrailers link. I also added a 1h review as source, which goes into depth about the game. If that is not enough, I suggest adding at the top to attract further attention from experts in the subject. Counterfeit Monkey seems to be one of the best, perhaps the best, regarded game in its form interactive fiction. --Bensin (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds good. I'm not familiar with the expert needed template but always welcome second opinions, especially from those that have more experience. Like in the Eat Me nomination, I get that this is probably disappointing and does enter a space of pedantry on my part so appreciate your patience and help with finding more sourcing.
 * The pretty heavy reliance on the Short Game citation is fair as it does seem to be significant coverage, but it is not clear to me that it's reliable coverage that helps the notability debate. The 'About' page of the site says that it's an in-depth podcast made by four interactive fiction fans, with the bio even light-heartedly joking that only one of the four hosts has any real credentials in video games.
 * I don't think anyone can deny that this game is clearly very highly regarded by people in the interactive fiction space, but it seems to be mostly community-led popularity, and that hasn't translated to a lot of coverage outside it. This is not to minimize the value of the interactive fiction community or assume that their commentary is unreliable or they don't generate notable games, but the sourcing does not reflect the imputed reputation if only two reliable reviews and a fan podcast can be found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form. The sources are corroborated by the other sources and no sources contradict each other. Besides, The Short Game has made content close to 10 years, and has produced almost 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they do now. --Bensin (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The only hits I'm getting for "The Short Game" are an unrelated movie, and the site brags that one of the people there is "the only one on the show with any real credentials". That strikes me as pretty blatantly unreliable. Therefore the game still fails WP:GNG, which is totally unrelated from whether it's a high-quality or fun game, which I don't doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The RSS feed to the show and its close to 400 episodes is here. This is the source that goes into the game to the greatest depth of all sources. If TSG lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they do now. Two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form. The sources are corroborated by the other sources and no sources contradict each other. (Yes, I said most of this already. You did not reply to the core points of my answer.) --Bensin (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On the first part, two reliable sources should be enough, especially for such a niche form implies that the threshold for notability is context-specific. Source analysis to determine notability is certainly context-specific, which might be relevant when thinking about The Short Game, but as I understand it, the approach to general notability is not within a given medium. The rigidity and inconvenience of this approach is offset by the need to draw the line to ensure articles can be supported by reliably sourced rather than user-generated or enthusiast content, which is unfortunately where a lot of the imputed significance of this work currently lies. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliability issue with any of the three sources in question? If so, what is it? What I'm saying is that interactive fiction is a niche form. Counterfeit Monkey appears to be the most appreciated work in that form. That is a strong indication that there should be an article about it. Current sources support everything that is in the article, and no sources contradict each other. --Bensin (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The above discussion about the The Short Game is about its reliability. The depth of content and volume of output by a podcast is relevant, but not in itself a strong indicator of reliability. WP:RELIABILITY raises factors such as whether the source has good editorial oversight, or has recognized notability of its own or recognized expertise in a field, which isn't the case here. At the end of the day the source leans to enthusiasts chatting about their favorite interactive fiction titles. It's comparable to WP:USERG sources such as enthusiast blogs or YouTube channels. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When asking about reliability issues, I was wondering if there is any evidence that they have published false or incorrect information. --Bensin (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Against Deletion: I can find several scholarly books that mention this game as important within the interactive fiction genre. Even if they do not give detailed coverage, the volume of mentions leads me to think it is probably notable: The Cambridge Companion to Twenty-First Century American Fiction (pg. 111) (ISBN 9781108838276), Creative Writing in the Digital Age: Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy (pg. 144) (ISBN 9781472574091), and Electronic Literature (pg. 124) (ISBN 9781509516810). However, I do not know how well these paragraphs will suffice for a full-length article. I would not be against an WP:AtD, such as merging. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Thank you for looking for academic sources. If there is significant coverage it would put an end to the hair-splitting over a third reliable source. I'll take a look shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All three can be found from Google Books. This is a great sourcelist that clearly illustrates that Short is clearly notable, but the game is mentioned much less. The game is cited neutrally in a sentence as an example of Short's work in the Cambridge Companion and the Creative Writing in the Digital Age. There's about a paragraph's worth in Electronic Literature that describes the game and has one evaluative statement: This work highlights the fact that whatever else IF is, it is mostly text, and that the imaginary it invites us to inhabit is one that is almost exclusively produced through language games played by the interactor through conversations with the author, the software, and the platform. The significant coverage is the operative thing here; I'm not sure assimilating brief mentions creates notability in itself. Would the Electronic Literature coverage be significant? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Volume of mentions" is not part of the notability criteria, see WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. It must have several pieces of significant coverage such as reviews. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree on that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could use a clean-up. I would also support a merge as WP:ATD, but I believe the RPS and scholarly sources provide enough reception for a notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to Emily Short, 2 reviews are not enough to pass GNG, especially when one of them is so brief (RPS). --Mika1h (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep based on currently available sources Totalibe (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the best WP:THREE sources from this discussion. The GameTrailers Review addresses the subject directly and in detail. The Rock Paper Shotgun Review is multiple paragraphs (which I don't consider brief or trivial), and is reviewed by a notable game designer, Porpentine. The paragraph in Electronic Literature also seems to describe the game and its mechanics in detail, although I can only see a part of it on Google Books preview. For a piece of literature in a very niche medium, I think this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Especially along with the other small mentions in academic sources listed by  above. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2024 (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.