Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 7th level

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 delete. — FireFox 11:40, 28 May '06

[edit] The 7th level

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

With an Alexa ranking of 1,260,703 [1], and what appears to be a grand total of one google hit for this specific subject [2], as well as no proof of any level of notability in the article itself, I believe this is non notable and therefore should be deleted. IrishGuy 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, googling "The 7th Level" or "The7thLevel" displays numerous links to the site, not just one, so even your initial statement is innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)

Actually, just click the link I provided. The first hit is this website. The fourth is this article. The rest have nothing to do with this website. IrishGuy 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem - [3] 8 pages, friend.

Eight pages from the7thlevel doesn't mean eight pages for this subject. One is a google mirror [4], two are for lulu.com (a self publishing site) because 7th level self published a book, some are from links in a web forum [5], [6], and one is a profile on a web forum [7]. More are from myspace profiles or blogs [8], [9], [10], etc. The rest have nothing to do with this site. And of those links listed, none are notable sources that would meet any of the WP:WEB criteria. IrishGuy 20:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes counted by closing administrator

• Delete WP:VSCA THE KING 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sounds like a cheap ripoff of Something Awful to me. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 20:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 22:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Delete By that standard any site that has humor, comics, etc is a rip off of something awful. By my Alexa bar, it was ranked 167,000 last month, and has experienced a traffic drop this month. Historically, it shows the traffic going up and down like this about every other month, so your current Alexa ranking isn't an accurate reflection of the site's popularity. And when you google the site title, yes it has one main entry. But if you google specific subjects that the site has covered, the articles are usually high up on the list. Several of its pieces are linked as external site links for many wikipedia entries, according to google. For example, if you google Dr. Phil, or "Dr. Phil Endorses the PSP" you find a fake Dr. Phil page the staff did a year ago that's not only linked all over the web, but apparently pulls in so much email from people actually believing it to be Dr. Phil's website that the staff get a mailbox full of Ask Dr. Phil emails every week asking for advice. Google lists it as having been linked here, on Fark, Alldumb, and on similar sites from numerous countries including Canada, France, Japan, and Russia. The head writer wrote for Whatever-dude, a now defunct but very popular spin-off of X-Entertainment, one of the most popular websites of this type. There are numerous sites that get less traffic and are less known than this one, that have wiki pages that have been up for over a year without being considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)
• Don't Delete -- Sgt. Ape 10:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete looking at all the sockpuppets here, I was just going to vote delete without reading, but then I read the article. I haven't changed my opinion. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes discounted by closing administrator

• Don't Delete -- OH NO! A source of humour whose content is similar to another source of humour! We might as well delete the Cracked Magazine entry, not to mention 75% of the webcomic entries, just to be safe! - AlCreed 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is AlCreed's first edit. Sgt. Ape created the The Cultural Revolution (webcomic) article. This webcomic appears on The 7th level, and it is a webcomic written by one Al Creed...so the above votes are not only self-serving, but may very well be sock puppetry. IrishGuy 18:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Al Creed's comments removed, and apologizes for offending IrishGuy by defending The7thLevel's entry. Also, denies accusation of being SgtApe, presumes IrishGuy is using Strawman Argument.AlCreed 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

reverted. Please don't remove comments from AfDs. IrishGuy 09:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. According to what I'm looking at, there are over 860 websites from 23 countries that link to this website. Sounds pretty relevant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)

It isn't about how many sites link to it. There are set standards which can be seen here: WP:WEB. IrishGuy 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should bring that up. One of their comics was just nominated for two web awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs)

Please cite the evidence of the nominations and the notability of the awards. IrishGuy 21:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.65.160 (talk • contribs)
• Don't Delete It isn't about the inspiration of the site's content nor it's similarity to other websites; as far as I can see this website gets notable traffic and this wiki reads as an unbiased account of this website's history and purpose. It was interesting to find out more about how it came into being. This deserves inclusion just like any other high-traffic entertainment website (when written in a non-self serving way.) AtypicalChuck

The above is AtypicalChuck's first edit. IrishGuy 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete I am not sure what the issue is here. I have read the deletion policy and I believe that the page is compliant with all of the guidelines. It is an accurate wiki article. I believe that putting it up for deletion is rather childish, because I am of the opinion that the people who are wanting it gone are the same who have instigated disagreements with the website already and have personal and irrelevant reasons for wanting the wiki deleted. Caitlin Des Rosier 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The above user, Caitlin Des Rosier, is yet another first time editor. I put this up for AfD following standard procedures. Whilst I am not in a position to speak for any other users, I have only visited the site once when analyzing it for AfD. I used Alexa and Google to find potential relevancy and found none. This AfD, like most, isn't personal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore article subjects must have encyclopedic value which can be verified. This website is, thus far, not notable. That may change in the future, but for now it doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB. Nothing personal. IrishGuy 02:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be a first time editor, but I've been familiar with Wikipedia for long enough to know that this entire argument is rather ridiculous. I will, for now, ignore the unnecessary name-calling which lends no credibility to your argument, but I would ask that it please stop. If it is possible, this discussion should be mature. As for defending the wiki that has my name attached to it - I find this to be a natural reaction and not one that should come as a surprise to anyone. To address the statement that we are all "self serving" - everything listed on Wikipedia is self serving in that it serves itself by providing history and facts and links that are available to the entire internet and therefore is promoted to a large audience. If this entry is to be deleted, than there must also be deletions for absolutely every other article in Wikipedia about an entertainment website or web comic, for one is every bit as relevant or irrelevant as another. I also ask - who are you to judge what does and does not have encyclopedic value? I believe that it has been adequately expressed that the website is linked all over the world and this shows that while the website is not interesting to you personally, there are people out there who ARE interested and might like to read about the history of the website as well as any other information included in the wiki. Caitlin Des Rosier 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have not called anyone names. The arguments aren't ridiculous as there are set standards (as I have pointed out numerous times) in WP:WEB that this site just doesn't meet. If you want to argue that the standards should be changed, go for it...but this isn't the place for that. I never said the site isn't interesting or that it is bad. I have made no judgement about the content of the site or the creators, merely that the subject isn't encyclopedic under Wiki standards. No, I don't decide what is or isn't encyclopedic, WP:WEB does. If all these people who create accounts just to vote don't delete were to take the time to prove some level of notability and verifiability, then this AfD would be over and the article would remain. IrishGuy 03:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been to read the page you are citing as your reasons for wanting the wiki deleted and I still view the argument as ridiculous. If you had flagged the page to say it had missing information then this would be different, but you did not. So far I believe we've met all of the requirements and I do not appreciate the "sock puppet" reference. I know it must be a term used in Wikipedia a lot, but it is used on this page in a derogatory fashion that I am offended by. That is what I mean by name calling and I firmly expect it to stop immediately. Caitlin Des Rosier 03:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

View it as you may. It is, in fact, the criteria for this encyclopedia. IrishGuy 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your problem with reading comprehension is becoming annoying, sir. I said the argument that you've posed is what I find ridiculous, and not the guidelines themselves. If you are going to suggest deletions and then also have a discussion to defend your reasons, please try to read, understand, and then respond. Doing otherwise shows disregard for your argument and tends to hurt rather than help. he fact that you believe the 7th level is not compliant with the guidelines after little to no research or effort to find the truth alerts me that you either don't know what you are doing or that you are what I have heard referred to as an "internet troll". I do not, sir, thrive on argument, and since you seem to be incapable of normal discussion, I am going to stop participating on this page. I believe that my point has been made - there is absolutely no valid reason for the deletion as we have filled every requirement. 67.161.252.42 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So first you claim that I made personal attacks, and then you go on to insult my intelligence? As far as reading comprehension goes, my arguments are based on the guidelines. If you are done playing sock puppet (note you forgot to use your brand new identity) we are done here. IrishGuy 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, we meet the criteria number 3 : "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators..." because every reference to a movie in our website has been linked at imdb.com and one of the web-comics featured has received nominations for two awards on thebestsatireawards.com and if the current voting trend continues, he should win those awards without any competition. Caitlin Des Rosier 03:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you don't meet number 3. Referencing a notable thing isn't the same as a notable thing referencing you. IrishGuy 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you had actually read the sentence I wrote, I said very clearly that imdb.com linked us. This is obviously going nowhere and I am going to stop replying to you after I go to bed. We are in compliance, and that's a fact. 67.161.252.42 09:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note, that you continue saying us. Guidelines state that writing an article about yourself is vanity. You are in no way compliant with the regulations. If you were, you should have no problem whatsoever providing verifiable evidence...which you appear unable to do. IrishGuy 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Irish guy's argument doesn't seem valid and he seems to be the only one who is strongly opposed to this article's existence. This article was written in an unbiased fashion and the website gets notable traffic. As for the first time editor bits, who cares. Really? If you do, then may I suggest finding yourself a bonnie lass with whom you can spend your time. Sugar Ray Dodge

Ah, another from the 7th Level forums [11]? You will note there have been multiple votes for deletion from experienced editors whereas the only votes for keeping are from brand new or users who have edited this article primarily. IrishGuy 07:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point she was trying to make was that IMDB.com links to every movie review their site puts up, especially reviews for movies which IMDB.com itself hasn't posted a review for. techinically, that is distribution of material from an independent website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.55.219 (talk • contribs)

Number 3 states: The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. IMDB is not a newspaper, magazine, broadcaster, nor publisher. It is a movie site that accepts information and links from any user. Therefore a link from IMDB placed by a 7th level user isn't the same as content distributed on a notable and independent source. IrishGuy 20:15, 27 May 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.