Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Monkey Games

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 delete Evidence of reliable third party coverage was not presented (see WP:WEB), as always I will undelete if some can be presented to me. W.marsh 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey Games[edit]

Contested prod, original reason for nomination was "Doesn't seem to be particularly notable or meet WP:V/WP:RS/WP:WEB." Procedural nomination, please count me as neutral. JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - fails to assert notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see what makes this notable. Fails reliability/verifiability requirements as well. Wickethewok 13:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The website is ranked roughly 2700 by Alexa (which ain't bad for a flash games site started a few years ago. Obvious cleanup is needed, but I think the website's sheer number of hits should eliminate any mention of speedy deletion. I'm not saying the article should be kept, but it certainly cannot be deleted for notability concerns given the Alexa ranking. -bobby 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, no expediency required. Wickethewok 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use Alexa rankings to determine notability - see WP:SET. --163.1.165.116 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the founder of Crazy Monkey Games (but did not create this article). Since I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's deletion policies and am obviously biased in this matter I'll refrain from voting. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's requirements to improve the article myself, but I'd be happy to communicate with an experienced contributor to answer any questions and provide verifiable information for use in the article. To start off, I would like to share some information about why I believe that Crazy Monkey Games is notable:
- CMG was created by a single individual working out of his home, and within less than 2 years grew to become one of the top 2000 most visited sites on the Internet.
- The website currently receives over 300,000 unique visitors per day.
- CMG pioneered the game sponsorship model now used by 100's of Flash gaming sites across the Internet. This model allows game developers to earn money from their games while still being credited as the author and retaining the copyright on the game - Something that was almost unheard of before the sponsorship model was introduced.
- CMG has sponsored the creation of many extremely popular Flash games, including:
  - The Thing-Thing series. Evidence of notability: 1,370,000 results in Google.
  - The Stickman Sam series. Evidence of notability: 675,000 results in Google.
  - Adrenaline Challenge. Evidence of notability: 741,000 results in Google.
  - RaidenX. Evidence of notability: 537,000 results in Google.
  - Many others, as can be seen in CMG's listing of sponsored games.

Ack226 21:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, but what we are looking for is reliable third party coverage. While your site may or may not be popular and may have many sites linking to it or whatever, it still needs information from published sources, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas and synthesis. Wickethewok 21:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand Instead of going and deleting this article, make yourselves useful and expand it! DotDarkCloud 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems notable enough, but needs better sources. --Alan Au 22:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Could be noteworthy, but the sources aren't there to confirm that. Lots of search hits, but the first 10 pages or so of search results are to the site itself, to programmers, or to forum posts. I did find [1], in which a library offers it among other teen-oriented sites, so that's an argument toward passing WP:WEB. Am willing to believe there are other similar... endorsements, I suppose? Recognition, at least... out there. Shimeru 10:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.