Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misetings

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus' &mdash; Xezbeth 18:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Misetings
Non-notable website. I can't get an Alexa ranking for it, except "not in the top 100,000". RickK 04:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) Delete: It's just another forum.
 * Delete, nn forumvertisement. Alexa rank 549,864. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 09:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just another website. Alexa ranking shows it's not notable. Mgm|(talk) 10:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been working on this article since its inception and I'd be irritated to see it go with as little behind it as "it's missing out of the top 100,000." --Mr Bound 10:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. android&harr;talk 12:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy: move to User:Mr Bound/Misetings and delete the redirect. Samaritan 13:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposition, Samaritan. What exactly would have to be done for this and where precisely can I find more information about it? Mr Bound 15:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a help page on that around here somewhere... ah, here it is. If it's decided that this is what is to be done with the article, you'll want to list the redirect that's left behind at Redirects for deletion. android&harr;talk 16:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since at this point the odds of the article being kept are pretty slim, I'll put my support behind this. Mr Bound 16:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Ouch, nice article. Wikinfo might be a more receptive host.Kappa 21:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. MTGNews has its own page... why shouldn't this? Also, there's some history for the MTG player interested in this unique community Sidar 0:52, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Really. Non-notable, not encyclopedic.  The tone of the article is horrible, and it's boring as hell too.  Even MTG fans couldn't find this article or topic interesting. Quale 04:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You mention that the tone is horrible- regardless of what happens to this article, how precisely would you improve it? Mr Bound 13:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that, while Quale may not revisit this page, I have been working hard to try and improve the tone of the article as well as trim uninteresting and redundant material and add links of value. Mr Bound 03:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep very notable website in the community. Grue 16:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Entries that need improvement should be improved, not deleted. No more an advertisement than the entries for SomethingAwful or MTGNews, even if the site is smaller. Basilisk128 22:33, 6 May 2005
 * User's first edit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.