- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was No consensus - no real policy argument carries excessive weight, and voices are pulling in several different directions. Wily D 08:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries
- Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Dates in baseball ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The baseball anniversaries series of pages were started in 2009 but were never completed. About 25% of the pages were created and little or no activity has taken place since 2009. An inquiry on the series creator's talk page went unanswered. A question at WikiProject:Baseball got little input. This appears to be abandoned and of little value. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Userfy It seems like too much good work to delete, but I can see the point that it's incomplete. Maybe it's something we can complete in the future. I don't know. – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: As there is no deadline to complete this task, I don't see any advantage in deleting this page. Is there any specific policy or guideline that should be taken into consideration when deciding if the page should be kept? (From Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, it would seem that marking the page as {{ historical}} (or perhaps {{ closed down}}) is more apt than deletion, but I'm not sure I see the advantage of that, either, versus just letting the task continue on.) isaacl ( talk) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball contains discussion on these pages in their previous incarnation; there are some pointers to relevant policies in that discussion—primarily, Wikipedia's guidance on it not being a directory of loosely-associated topics (events in category Z that occur on day X). I am sympathetic to the argument that having anniversary pages for every topic area may be unwieldy, and essentially of trivial value. On the other hand, it's not an unusual organization technique for an overview of a topic. If anyone can point to specific policies regarding the suitability of types of portal pages, it would be appreciated. isaacl ( talk) 04:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: These date pages are all just copied and pasted from the BR Bullpen, so I wouldn't feel that concerned about all the "work" that went into the pages. Kinston eagle ( talk) 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per what Isaacl mentions. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- This looks like an absurd amount of work for what amounts to a WikiProject-specific "on this day" box, but I can't really see any policy-based arguments against it other than that it seems to be moribund at the 25% mark (and thus mostly useless). Set the fuse for 2016; if we're still sitting at 25% then, get rid as evidently nobody is using it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Thumperward. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was No consensus - no real policy argument carries excessive weight, and voices are pulling in several different directions. Wily D 08:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries
- Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Category:Dates in baseball ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The baseball anniversaries series of pages were started in 2009 but were never completed. About 25% of the pages were created and little or no activity has taken place since 2009. An inquiry on the series creator's talk page went unanswered. A question at WikiProject:Baseball got little input. This appears to be abandoned and of little value. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Userfy It seems like too much good work to delete, but I can see the point that it's incomplete. Maybe it's something we can complete in the future. I don't know. – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: As there is no deadline to complete this task, I don't see any advantage in deleting this page. Is there any specific policy or guideline that should be taken into consideration when deciding if the page should be kept? (From Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, it would seem that marking the page as {{ historical}} (or perhaps {{ closed down}}) is more apt than deletion, but I'm not sure I see the advantage of that, either, versus just letting the task continue on.) isaacl ( talk) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 7 in baseball contains discussion on these pages in their previous incarnation; there are some pointers to relevant policies in that discussion—primarily, Wikipedia's guidance on it not being a directory of loosely-associated topics (events in category Z that occur on day X). I am sympathetic to the argument that having anniversary pages for every topic area may be unwieldy, and essentially of trivial value. On the other hand, it's not an unusual organization technique for an overview of a topic. If anyone can point to specific policies regarding the suitability of types of portal pages, it would be appreciated. isaacl ( talk) 04:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: These date pages are all just copied and pasted from the BR Bullpen, so I wouldn't feel that concerned about all the "work" that went into the pages. Kinston eagle ( talk) 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per what Isaacl mentions. - DJSasso ( talk) 13:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- This looks like an absurd amount of work for what amounts to a WikiProject-specific "on this day" box, but I can't really see any policy-based arguments against it other than that it seems to be moribund at the 25% mark (and thus mostly useless). Set the fuse for 2016; if we're still sitting at 25% then, get rid as evidently nobody is using it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Thumperward. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.