Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinker Island (video game)


 * 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 keep. SoWhy 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Tinker Island (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article contains three reviews as references. Of those sources, two of them have a "Submit your game for review" option. One of which has the following: Submitting your game to Edamame Reviews is a great way to reach a highly targeted audience of iOS and Android gamers and industry influencers who view our site multiple times each day. This quite obviously casts doubt on its reliability and independence of the subject. For these reasons I believe this doesn't satisfy WP:NGAME. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  18:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - firstly, disclosure, I am the AfC editor who accepted this article, so obviously there is a degree of bias with that. Hopefully I can make a suitable case despite that.


 * The article was certainly right on the boundary of getting through, but that was somewhat more because of verificability rather than straight-up notability. Notability for video games is always a nuisance (remember, WP:NGAME is an essay - a good one, but not a supplement. It's primarily GNG that governs it). This is compounded because judging the sources independence is a nuisance. It's not surprising that most game critic sites ask for them - they need a sufficient turnover to survive. Remember all news websites ask for news. This can create both bias (being positive so everyone submits) and non-bias (being independent so users actually come to the site).


 * My judgement was that Edamame was on the wrong side, while Gamezebo was on the right. I felt this was sufficient (with the Player.One review to prove it was verifiable but I also had a hunt elsewhere to cover notability., Source 1, Source 2 (needs google translate) Source 3 are the best alternate sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep First off, I agree with that this is a somewhat borderline case.  But, I think that the Player.One review in combination with the infogame.vn review establishes notability with respect to WP:GNG. Additionally I think that Game Zebo is also a reliable source for this article because in that very page you linked they say "Do not offer to pay for reviews. There is a big, fat line between editorial and advertising here at Gamezebo."  I have no reason to believe that they are lying, especially given the tone of the rest of that page.  Asking for and receiving game review copies in exchange for the possibility of a review is common practice in video game journalism and doesn't compromise the independence or reliability of the source. Winner 42  Talk to me!  19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The VG/RS search engine (WP:VG/SE), based on sources identified as reliable for video gaming topics, indicates that this topic probably does not meet the bar for notability, whatever sources have been provided above. Do all of the works provided above indicate that they meet the bar to be identified as reliable? I would guess not. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A couple of points here. Firstly, WP:VG/SE provides a useful list (thanks, I'll refer to it in future) of both inclusions and exclusions - sources 1, 2 and 3 don't appear on either. Meaning that even if you took the list as gospel, you'd still need to come to your own conclusion on each of them. Secondly, I don't need each of them to meet the bar - if we take gamezebo as given since it's on the list and seems reliable by personal inspections from several of us, that only requires one more source. There are 4 in the offing (not counting edamame) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The list is mostly drawn from WP:VG/S--the search engine is just useful for using those sources trivially. Indeed, we need to come to a conclusion on the other three sources. As I said (because I have not investigated), I would guess the other three do not meet the reliability bar (based solely on their names--only one has widespread TLD [.com] and that one looks entirely domain specific, sites of which do not often indicate reliability or which indicate unreliability). Now, if Gamezebo is the only source, and the GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing the topic in depth (i.e., reviews or substantial previews), that bar is certainly not met, even including the above sources. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:VG/S explicitly states that "This [sources] list is neither complete nor can it be used as definitive proof regarding a listed source's reliability determination" so the fact that a source isn't on that list and doesn't have a standard TLD is enough to judge it unreliable? Player.One is a Newsweek Media Group organization with a professional editorial staff and no indication that it is unreliable as it uses the same editorial practices as the other branches of the Newsweek Group.  It is a published, independent authority from its subjects which should be more than sufficiently reliable for the standards of WP:GNG.  That in combination with gamezebo, which it seems you agree is a passable source, is sufficient for passing GNG.  But just in case, I'll go over the sources.
 * Edamame is unreliable as it accepts money for publishing articles.
 * Pocket Gamer's content is a republished press release
 * Infogame.vn is in Vietnamese which doesn't change the fact that it is a reliable source. It has a professional editorial staff and their advertising policies don't indicate any issues that would interfere with the independence of their reviews.
 * AppCheaters appears to just be a one person blog-like operation
 * Player.One is reliable as discussed above
 * It appears we agree Gamewebo is reliable, as it has editorial oversight and independence
 * That's three reliable sources providing in depth, independent coverage. This is sufficient for passing GNG. Winner 42  Talk to me!  16:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like says, it doesn't meet the WP:VG standard.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How so - if Gamezebo, Player.One & Infogame aren't all on the WP:VG list then that is neither a positive or a negative ruling on them. How do those not on the list fail to meet the standard exactly ? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep On the VG sources issues, unless we have previously discussed the source and determined it unreliable, not being on the list doesn't mean the source is not reliable; we'd have to evaluate those sources in more depth, but for purposes of an AFD discussion, these one offs can be considered on their own. On the specific game, there does seem to be some minimal coverage, one of the first Kongergate titles for mobile, and some of the mobile-based websites do discuss it. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage but there's enough to give this the benefit of doubt. --M asem (t) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep If sources that have been determined to count as reliable sources give it significant coverage, then it meets the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  19:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough significant coverage for this game to pass WP:GNG. We require significant, reliable coverage in independent sources. Sources mention the game, but that's hardly enough to show it's notable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Very weak keep as technically having multiple reliable independent (somewhat) in-depth sources. The sources cited in the article: JayIsGames is good, if short; GameZebo is okay; Player.one looks good and seems like a good source without a more thorough examining; TouchArcade is basically a directory entry; AppCheaters doesn't look good, lacking usual reliability hallmarks; Pocket Gamer is a press release copy; not sure about InfoGame, but I don't see any reliability hallmarks (such as about or editorial page or something), language barrier notwithstanding. So that makes 2 decent GNG sources and possibly another plus some extra sourcing for content. I guess it's the utmost minimal bar for GNG, which it barely passes. If the developer ever gets an article, merge. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep along similar lines of Masem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2018 (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.