- 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 keep. @ harej 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Portal under construction for more than... 3 years. Nobody really contributed in that one. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a fairly well-developed portal, which generates a modest amount of hits to itself [1] and has relevant links to other pages in the subject area. What exactly is deficient about it (other than being somewhat dated)? I left a message at the Buffy Wikiproject. – xeno talk 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Stong Keep per xeno, I don't understand why this was nominated in the first place. Ikip ( talk) 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I've worked almost alone on the portal in the Wikipedia in French and it's now a "good portal". This prove it can be possible to make something with it. Léna ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep While it may not be an interesting topic for a portal, it is well developed and looks like it took some effort laying this out. Zoo Fari 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Since the policy behind Portals is a bit unclear, a discussion started in Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Does_a_portal_need_to_be_actively_edited_in_order_to_be_useful.3F. Please raise your voice. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the value in deletion, while I do see value in retaining it. Croctotheface ( talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (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 keep. @ harej 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Portal under construction for more than... 3 years. Nobody really contributed in that one. Magioladitis ( talk) 13:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a fairly well-developed portal, which generates a modest amount of hits to itself [1] and has relevant links to other pages in the subject area. What exactly is deficient about it (other than being somewhat dated)? I left a message at the Buffy Wikiproject. – xeno talk 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Stong Keep per xeno, I don't understand why this was nominated in the first place. Ikip ( talk) 14:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - I've worked almost alone on the portal in the Wikipedia in French and it's now a "good portal". This prove it can be possible to make something with it. Léna ( talk) 15:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep While it may not be an interesting topic for a portal, it is well developed and looks like it took some effort laying this out. Zoo Fari 21:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Since the policy behind Portals is a bit unclear, a discussion started in Wikipedia_talk:Portal#Does_a_portal_need_to_be_actively_edited_in_order_to_be_useful.3F. Please raise your voice. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see the value in deletion, while I do see value in retaining it. Croctotheface ( talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (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.