Talk:Alternative Software

@Tseung Kwan O: proposed that this article be deleted because

"This article fails to meet WP (companies) notability guidelines. There is also evidence showing that this article may be used as a form of self-advertisement of the company, given that most of the edits made in this article are made from a particular account."

Further along these lines, it's also alleged that a "major contributor to this article"- I'm assuming that's supposed to refer to me!- has "a close connection" with the company.

Full disclosure; here's the extent of my connection with the company... I bought a few of their Atari game cassettes during my early teens, and really quite liked Pro Mountain Bike Simulator.

Er... that's your lot.

As a 13 or 14 year old, I'd probably have been a bit young to be employed by them, and if I were a present-day employee attempting to fluff up the company I'm sure I'd have concentrated more on their latterday activities beyond a brief note that they were still in existence and producing something (albeit that something isn't of as much interest to me).

In short, I wrote the article because I grew up in their heyday, had some of their games and noticed there wasn't an article. Yes, indeed I wrote most of it. This doesn't indicate a conflict of interest, it indicates that I wanted to write a half-decent article in the first place.

Perhaps as a self-proclaimed "novice editor", Tseung Kwan O could use a bit more common sense and not jump to conclusions or make accusations about people simply because they're the major contributor to an article. In this case, the problem is more that other people haven't added to it than the fact I (didn't) load it with promo fluff.

FWIW, I think the references already demonstrated quite major notability, including the fact that they had numerous titles out and had published official licenses for well-known characters like Count Duckula, but I've tightened this up including making specific the number of titles they released (at minimum a hundred by the referenced lists) and noted that they claim to have had 17 percent of the UK budget gaming market at their peak. (Admittedly the interview came across as tending towards a fluff piece, but I do note that it's what he *claims*, and the claim is reasonably plausible given the other evidence).

I'll note that @Tseung Kwan O: placed the Template:COI (talk · links · edit) allegation template but failed to initiate a dialog explaining this as required (point 6) and I'm entitled to remove it. I'm also entitled to remove the PROD on the basis that I disagree with it for the reasons given above.

Further, I believe that @Jorgath:'s complaints in the issues tag have been addressed or answered above (if they were ever valid in the first place). If there's no response or rebuttal in the near future, I'll remove that too, as it's been there for years.

Ubcule (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by my COI accusation. When I patrol Wiki pages and read the edit history, I expect to see an amalgam of different editors participating and contributing to the article. However, this was clearly not the case in this article, and I suspected possible foul play (this company isn't very notable). Of course, since you have offered evidence of your innocence, I retract my COI statement. However, I am still concerned about the notability of this company, as this is not directly reflected in the article. Unless notability is shown in this article, it still remains a candidate for deletion. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tseung Kwan O:; The article already has a referenced claim that the company had something like a sixth of the UK budget videogame market at its peak. That in itself is a sufficient claim of notability as far as I'm concerned, let alone the other referenced facts!

If you don't understand *why* that's a clear indication of notability, it suggests you're not familiar enough with the general background (i.e. the late-80s UK videogame market) to judge notability in the first place- and it's not really the job of this specific article (which covers a specific company and not the history of gaming) to explain that to you.

(I'll mention it here anyway as an informal- and unreferenced- explanation purely for your benefit. At the time, the budget sector in the UK was very significant and vastly outsold full-price videogames in terms of units. FWIW, any company that had 17 percent of the former likely had a double-digit percentage of the *total* videogame market in terms of units shipped!)

I don't believe that simply re-stating that you're "still concerned about the notability of this company" and claiming that "[notability] is not directly reflected in the article" without further explanation is really satisfactory. I've explained clearly why it's notable. Can you explain why you disagree?

Ubcule (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to copy and paste the full article so that we can solve this problem once and for all:

"Alternative Software is a British software developer and publisher founded in 1985.

From the mid 1980s to the early 1990s, the company published well over a hundred games, primarily for the 8-bit computer formats in the budget (£1.99 to £3.99) market. These included both original titles (e.g. Pro Mountain Bike Simulator) as well as reissues of other developers' and publishers' software (e.g. Creative Sparks' River Rescue). The company also released a number of budget titles based on licensed characters (e.g. Count Duckula).

In a 2015 interview, founder Roger Hulley claimed that by 1990 the company had a 17 percent share of the budget games sector.

During the late 1990s, the company diversified into development of "paint studio", "print studio" and similar-type software. As of 2014, the company is still active."

OK, now let's get to the facts. From what i see here, only 3 things tell me that this company potentially has sufficient notability to be made into a Wiki page. First, it has produced over 100 games. However, many companies and developers have also produced 100 games, and not all of them have notability either, so that alone is insufficient for determining this company's notability, and does not separate it from the rest of the market. Next, we have the claim that by 1990 the company owned a market share of 17 percent in the budget games sector. I believe most editors would agree with me on the fact that a claim does not substantiate a company's notability. A claim in any case merely supports a concrete fact (as most testimonies in court are treated nowadays), and therefore this article still has not shown in concrete terms the grounds for allowing it to pass WP notability guidelines. The third thing that might be used to show the company's notability is that as of 2014, it is still active. Of course, it can be said that because the company has been active for over 30 years, it may have constituted a big change, or even a paradigm shift in the budget games sector. However, again there is no concrete evidence to support this fact (from what I have read from this article), and hence it also cannot serve as evidence of the company's notability. If you believe what I have said just now does not apply to this article, or that any of these three things will serve as proof of the company's importance, look no further than the first sentence in the 'edit source' section of the main article: 'notability|corp|date=July 2012'. Another like-minded editor has already established this fact almost 4 years ago. I understand that you have recently added new references to support your claim, and I have also re-read this article, but I still believe that more work can be done to demonstrate this company's notability. I can see that you are the main contributor to this article, and since you have already spent a huge amount of effort constructing this article, why not spare some time to add a few more lines to this article to show its notability? I hope this helps. If you still have any questions or concerns regarding this issue, you can reply to this comment. And I would like to state once again that I'm not saying this article has to be deleted because of its unnotability. If sufficient proof showing that it indeed is important enough for WP to include it in its wide array of articles, so be it (and I personally love seeing WP increase its amount of articles each day). However, as other editors would also agree, WP also needs to keep up its quality, and therefore I hope improvements can be made concerning the notability of this company. Tseung Kwan O (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This discussion is a bit bizarre for readers with even a bit of expertise in the video games market only. Publishing 100+ games is outstanding even by today's standards, the "claim" has been picked up by citable media of its time and to indicate that the company has been defunct between 1985 and now is a bit of a conspiracy theory, especially if you recall the constant line of published products. Check the German article for some additional information and sources. Cheers, Grueslayer   Let's talk. 19:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Started writing before Grueslayer's reply seen.)

@Tseung Kwan O:; I can guarantee that if every Wikipedia article was held to the standard of notability (or rather, proof of notability) you wish to apply to this one, the majority would be deleted. Maybe that's as it should be, but I like to see consistent standards.

FWIW, the fact that the company has been around for thirty years isn't really what makes is notable, and wasn't meant to be.

"Why not spare some time to add a few more lines to this article to show its notability?"

Given that I'd already- rather obviously!- been doing just that, I'd say this "helpful" suggestion was pretty unnecessary, wouldn't you?

"look no further than the first sentence [..] Another like-minded editor has already established [my emphasis] this fact [ditto!] almost 4 years ago."

Nope.

If you're going to nitpick over the validity of a "claim" (as above) in a quasi-legal manner, then it smacks of blatant double standards- or sloppiness- not to do the same here. No "facts" were "established" merely because a single editor added a Template:multiple issues (talk · links · edit) template. There's no barrier to entry or significant burden of proof in doing that.

Regardless of whether or not the criticisms were legitimate, you can't have your cake and eat it in that respect.

"However, as other editors would also agree, WP also needs to keep up its quality, and therefore I hope improvements can be made concerning the notability of this company."

This is redundant- in the "being in favour of motherhood and apple pie" sense, since almost all established editors (myself included) are concerned with quality- some of us just don't make a song and dance about it.

You might disagree with aspects of how the article is written or referenced, which is reasonable enough. However, the vaguely insulting implication- that you're concerned with quality and (by extension) that I'm not- isn't particularly helpful.

Anyway; notability asserted via references from two independent printed publications both of which can be considered reliable third-party sources.

Ubcule (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Reply