Talk:Scopely
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 ton
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scopely article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find video game sources: "Scopely" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
.svg){kind=icon}
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. — MusikAnimal talk 18:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Controversy section
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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)
Implemented 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)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.