Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Sanctum

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 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website. Spam. Ezeu 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of Seventh Sanctum here - the profile was created (not at my behest) by one of the site's regulars. I do feel the initial creator included too much extraneous materials. I have edited it to a more reasonable size. I must Abstain due to my involvement.XWayfarer 10:23, 26 January 2006 (EST).

• I will have to Abstain here since I count XWayfarer as a personal friend. However, I would question the nom's judgement that the site is non-notable; while "Seventh Sanctum" gets 18,800 Google hits, slightly on the low side, looking at how those hits refer to Seventh Sanctum shows that people are recommending it as a valuable resource; people are calling "the best source on the Internet"[1] and "the current champ"[2]. Here you have a college's English department putting the site on a list of resources it recommends to its students, andthese people are using the site's generators in making their independent film series. Again, I have to abstain, but I hope people will consider these factors before making a judgement about the site's notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - alexa ranking of 113,599, and the forum only has 117 members. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this should be on their website, not on the Wikipedia. Stifle 09:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep noted as a useful reference in the article "Master the name game" by Arthur Plotnik published in The Writer Magazine, Dec. 2005 issue. Crypticfirefly 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Merely because a website is recommended by someone somewhere does not make it notable. At least not by Wikipedia standards.--Ezeu 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I'm saying "weak keep." Crypticfirefly 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete KI 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep because I have heard of the site before, and some of my RPG friends have actually used it. It's not exactly world-famous, but think it is somewhat notable within the subculture. The article needs some cleanup though. Draeco 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• When in doubt, keep -- Simon Cursitor 08:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that an article on Seventh Sanctum was created previous to this, and although it was deleted, the deleting admin didn't offer any reason why it was deleted, only "listed for speedy deletion"[3], which rather suggests that it didn't actually meet any criteria for speedy deletion and shouldn't have been. If looking at the deleted version showed that it was created by the same user, that doesn't indicate much, but if the current article actually represents the second independent user to think Wikipedia should have an article on the subject, that should be factored in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Zzzzz 16:17, 2 February 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.