Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toast Time

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Toast Time}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toast_Time Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Toast Time}})

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)

• There is also [http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/review/a551977/mobile-reviews-toast-time-line-of-defense-tactics-dungelot-2/ this review] at DigitalSpy but personally I still think two reviews, one of them on a subject-specific site, isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• 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? Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Another addendum: Tapscape was flagged as unreliable due to their usage of sponsored content and advertising disguised as reviews, which adds further to my head scratching over TouchArcade. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi ♠PMC♠,

• An addendum r.e. reviews/coverage: There is also a review from [http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/08/29/review-toast-time-pc/99814/ Hardcore Gamer] which is in the WP:VG/S, and coverage in UK newspaper/website [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/16/toast-time-app-review The Guardian]. I will look for additional sources shortly so please do not delete this page yet. Ashgwin (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Big Red Barrel & 148Apps reviews can be removed if they are not notable. The awards can also be removed if they are not notable. Ashgwin (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• 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)
• {{u|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 {{u|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)
• It looks like the "Product Reviews" page on Touch Arcade is the sponsored content section, and so (rightly so) is separate from the rest of the content e.g. news/reviews/hot games/etc. Also see this page https://toucharcade.com/amazon which makes it more explicit. I think this was introduced after Apple removed their affiliate referral program: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/01/apple-is-ending-its-app-store-affiliate-program-in-october/ Ashgwin (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• : Relevant: https://toucharcade.com/2018/08/01/apple-kills-the-app-store-affiliate-program-and-i-have-no-idea-what-we-are-going-to-do/ czar 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I was leaning towards weak delete, but a review by mainstream news outlet The Guardian, together with VG/RS Hardcore Gamer and Pocket Gamer definitely meets WP:GNG, in my opinion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. References are padded, article could use some work, but I think there's enough real coverage to meet GNG. Dgpop (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC).
• 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)
• 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)

• Comment {{reply to|Nathan2055}} I will just say that Android Police should be moved to Inconclusive Discussions because this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_12#Android_Police certainly was not a consensus in any sense. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• Don't think it'll affect this AfD, but started a discussion on TouchArcade: File:Farm-Fresh eye.png Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#TouchArcade czar 02:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
• Keep seems to fulfill WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.