Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo Fleet (second nomination)
per my reasons in the first AFD (which I've included here). Also, this is being proposed by a :Template:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|pseudo-deletionist without a real reason why it should be deleted, without citing any valid Wikipedia Policy. I'm sorry, but show me where "fancruft" is a valid policy. I'll admit to being a senior member of BF, but I have also been a Wikipedian for over a year and a half now. BF has been around for about 9 years now, and is a strong member of the Star Trek on-line gaming community. Using , We're (wikipedia) not a paper encyclopedia, so, why can't we have a topic like this. Is it hurting anyone by keeping it there? I'm sure you can tell that I am an m:Inclusionism|Inclusionist. Its (the information in the article) not slanderous, its verifiable, and we have kept sites that are just as non-notable before. Also, I don't see how it meets the  standard: It has won web design awards, and has been included in a book on Star Trek and the creator has been interviewed a couple of times. Also, I'd like to see some definitive reasons it is considered a vanity site . Is it enough to say it doesn't meet a number thresh-hold () and that it is vain () without citing why
— User:Azathar, 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:WEB||WP:VAIN||WP:WEB||WP:VAIN (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)