Deletion of Section 47

Comment: NN. No claims of notibilty. Does not meet  in any way. Does not come close. Wikipedia is not a listing of star trek fansites role-playing groups. (Isn't there a star trek wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Most of the people opposed to this article, cite the fact that the Section 47 website doesn't meet the  criteria as an important reason. However, Section 47 is not primarily a Star Trek-related website (and certainly not a fansite, Agnte), it is an international organization that brings people together to share their love for writing fiction in the Star Trek universe. Yes, it does use a website to reach that goal, but the website is only a means, not the goal itself. If Section 47 conducted all its business without a website, would the article be allowed? I think that's the question that should be answered. Don't judge Section 47 against the  criteria, because they don't apply. &middot;&middot;&middot
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: I agree that the article needs to be rewritten, but it should not be deleted. Section 47 ''is'' a notable Star Trek sim site, even if it doesn't meet the  criteria. It was the second site to combine trivia and simming in one, and with the first site to do that having closed down some time ago, it is now the longest running site with this concept. Many sites have been created since featuring the same concept. (So maybe Section 47 does meet the  criteria after all.) Furthermore, Section 47 is not just a website, it is an organization, with an extended management system. I think there are many articles on Wikipedia about much smaller and less organized organizations. Finally, as the original creator (founder) of Section 47, I have no problem with parts of the text from the Section 47 website being used on Wikipedia. &middot;&middot;&middot
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: I agree with WarekofVulcan that perhaps both should be deleted but this one is up for debate right now and no-one has given any proof of notability. Apart from that, all sites of this nature are themselves violating Paramount's Star Trek Copyright. This site does not meet  criteria and is not listed on Alexia as far as I could tell at all. Heavy commenting by the site's members make it seem like Vanity, advertising or both to me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)