Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MiseTings

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). When I discount votes from entirely new users, I count 4 votes to keep and 5 votes to delete. With slightly less than a two-thirds majority to delete, I am unwilling to call this result a delete and will default to the no consensus keep result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 11:09 (UTC)

MiseTings

It's a forum discussing

• Comment: to all voters, please note that
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Misetings (note the name change, if subtle). Also, to Radiant's comment, the term "mise" existed long before the card. The articles archives go back to late 2001, but this is even a little late since the site underwent a redesign that reorganized those. The forum was a nod to the term, the card's creation came later. I'll vote shortly. Mr Bound
  22:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • My vote is, of course, keep. I might choose to expand upon this later. This is a tiring affair to go through again so soon. Mr Bound 22:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because it's been around for 4-5 years doesn't mean that it's a notable enough forum to include in WP. -Sean Curtin 02:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As far as I'm concerned, this page has survived one VFD: nothing has changed so that another VFD would be meritable. Also, this page includes other aspects of the site, not simply the forums. Radiant, apparently you have not done enough research since MiseTings is the newer version of MiseTingsGasEtc, the first site created by MB. Just because you consider MTGnews to be a primary MTG site (which it isn't anymore, thank you MTGSalvation) doesn't mean an inclusion of MiseTings is unnecessary. And if you're so concerned about "vanity", why don't you begin a VFD for every other website because apparently those pages only exist for "vanity" and promotion. sidar 03:11, June 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please calm down a bit, and take a look at the non-notable websites that get deleted daily as WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< 07:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as sad as that makes me. I'm as into Magic quite a bit; in fact, I've created articles on some of the early sets. But the line between encyclopedic and cruft has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm afraid it's here. -- Grev -- Talk 03:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  survived vfd not so far ago. The word "mise" _definitely_ not started with Unhinged (Unglued, maybe). The site has been around for at least 5 years.  Grue 
  04:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, we should have an article on
    Mise to explain that :) Radiant_>|<
    07:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope you're kidding. That would be even worse fancruft than anything this article could. It would in addition be part dictionary definition. Mr Bound 11:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nah, not Mise...but there is a list of Magic terms that it can be put into... -- Grev -- Talk 05:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Look what Britannica says about mise :)  Grue  08:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this article survived a vote already. Why put it up to another? Time and effort has been put into this by multiple people. Jeremyarc7 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User has six edits. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 08:56 (UTC)
• Because standards change. Delete. – ugen64 19:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Way, way on the wrong side of the encyclopaedic/cruft divide. Tedious

  Both of this user's edits are to this VfD page. Grue  16:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is almost entirely non-encyclopedic cruft, and the website is non-notable. Quale 17:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.