Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UGOPlayer


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

UGOPlayer
This site doesn't seem very notable. Compu te  r  Jo  e  20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If this page is deleted, Newgrounds, YTMND, and Ebaumsworld should go as well. It is a perfectly fine site, up and running for 4 years, which is probably longer than you have been. 67.80.168.7 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No personal attacks, please. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I was tempted to enter a revert war over this. The article would be OK as a stub, but there's way too much unencyclopedic content in it that can't be deleted without sparking an immediate revert by the people involved. Fagstein 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page as it stands is pretty much advertising and irrelevant sitecruft, and the site doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB anyway (almost all the hits on Google are from computer-generated web spam pages designed to screw around with Google's page ranking. --Aaron 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 92k hits on Google and in the same category of sites as Newgrounds. Not a poorly written article, either.  -- A l e x W C ov i n g t o n  16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What search string did you use? Cause when I search for UGOPlayer it comes up with "89,900 English pages for UGOPlayer" but at the bottom of the search it says In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 6 already displayed. When you remove that option, it shows practically all the results are from flashplayer.com and ugoplayer.com. I've never seen so many results from so few sites before on google. For reference "UGO Player" has 268/28 unique results, without quotes goes up to 357,000/121 unique but a lot of those arn't relevant. Petros471 16:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind the site was recently renamed. A search for "flashplayer.com" would probably be more appropriate. Fagstein 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That comes up with 454 uniques, rather more I agree. I'm still neutral on this one (for now at least). Petros471 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A site that is listed in the top 3,000 traffic sites certainly deserves to get on. Especially when YTMND only ranks in the top 2,500 and has no real deletion intended. Plus, this site is a major flash site, since it only accepts quality submissions.   Also, when researched, it has approximately on 330,000 less hits that Newgrounds, which comes out as a 10% difference, even though FP has been around for about 1/2 the time as Newgrounds. 67.80.168.7 18:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 100% of this IP address's contributions since Jan. 17 have been to this article, its Talk page or its AFD section. Fagstein 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't you get it? The reason for that is because this is the only article I care about. And I probably understand the site a lot better because I actually was there for about a year or so. I know what the inside things are, I know what the outside things are, and I know how to look at things without bias from there. It makes sense that this would be the only one I care about, because I was probably the most nationalistic (In terms of sites) person there, and probably will be the last one. So yes, 100% of my contibutions are there, and with reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.7 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see Vanity about why editing articles about a site you're involved with is a bad idea. Fagstein 05:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "The insertion of any textual personal biographical information within an article which does not significantly add to the clarity or meaning of the article. (Vanity text edits.)" Is that what you are reffering to? Nothing in there is about me, and everything iscontributable to the article. Like, if a person goes on, and sees a site, what would they want? What's it's purpose, how does it meet that purpose, does it have a second part to it (In this can a forum), and in this case, what has happened to that forum in the past. Maybe even what groups and clubs are on that forum. I will get you a poll on a neutral site on whether certain movies are cult or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.7 (talk • contribs) 15:46, February 4, 2006
 * Just because it's not about you (I have no way of verifying that, BTW) doesn't mean it's not vanity. The fact that you're writing about something you're involved with is. That said, the problem here isn't mainly vanity, but the fact that the article contains massive amounts of information that is not verifiable and hence should be deleted. See WP:NFT WP:OR and WP:V for Wikipedia policies on verifiability (and while you're at it, you may want to consider creating an account). Fagstein 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have one. It's sbloemeke. I just don't use it much. And for your information, I have not been there since last May. It's not vanity to write about something there. And you know what? What is vain in that article? Anything? Give me a reference. Just because you were involved in something doesn't mean that you cannot write in a neutral unvain point of view. Reference something. Anything. Use your own logic. Oh, and if you want, why don't I just quote the number of views with the ratings of the movies/games. There's your source that they are popular. Numbers don't lie. 67.80.168.7 03:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we have precedent on keeping by virtue of Alexa ranking? ie, are we going to have articles on all sites that ever occupy the top 3K? I agree, the ranking makes it putatively notable, but I'm concerned as to the precedent.  A  drian  L  amo · 22:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not a prescedent to exist, because nobody will make all of them. But any that occupy the top 3K should be allowed to exist once created, granted that it's not mindless babble.67.80.168.7 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, presumptively notable per Alexa ranking. Let's not have 2999 more, though.  A  drian  L  amo · 22:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per WP:GOOGLE, the Alexa Test is considered quite unreliable for several reasons. I would be loath to rely on Alexa alone, when Google's numbers are so wildly different. --Aaron 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per aaon Maustrauser 05:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What isn't vanity is advertising. per nom Zen611 03:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've rewritten it slightly. Assuming it survives the revert war it makes the article a bit better (but still with way too much unencyclopedic content). Fagstein 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Are.You.Freaking.Kidding.Me. I will be reverting this ASAP, for if it is left as it is, it has no value whatsoever. But, I will offer you a compromise, if you wish. You can get rid of that "The Site" section and add a link, if you wish, but all of the original "The Forum" stuff will remain. Otherwise, this will be reverted and reverted back 100 million times. Thank you.67.80.168.7 14:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as seems to fail notability criteria, even for Alexa rank (WP:GOOGLE suggests top 1000 may be notable). Google listings seems pretty low outside of the official domain names, and the article seems to be full of advertising, without asserting notability.--Petros471 10:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alexa ratings. While Alexa is not pefect, a rank of 2,992 is very significant. Turnstep 18:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * New idea I still advocate for keeping as is, but I will suggest an alternative. The following things would happen:
 * 1. The article is labled as a stub
 * 2. The stub is given a neutrality dispute on the top.
 * 3. The article is left as is, or added on to, until references are added.
 * 4. Once references are added, it is then removed from being a stub, with an agreement to not delete any of the present sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.168.7 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm glad you're amenable to a compromise situation. I have no issue with adding neutral, encyclopedic content to the article. But it has to be referenced, and has to be the opinion of someone other than the poster. Fagstein 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reference added for authors, so there is reference for everything now. And it is now the opinion of the people who voted. All are referenced. 67.80.168.7 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Keep', per Alexa ranking. Kappa 02:54, 6 February 2006 (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.