- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Celtic FC
Portal page was created two months ago. Page does not in any way conform to standards of portals. Propose deletion without prejudice for recreation if constructed more in conformity with portal standards. Creator of the portal is being notified of this discussion. John Carter 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carbon Monoxide 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Most certainly in its current condition. -- Eye of the Mind 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Guliolopez 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Joe I 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure of the scope of this, but it seems to me that it should live or die by whether we need a portal, not the condition of this one. If we don't need a portal for this axe it. If we do, then fix it. What is this "without prejudice for recreation", just fix it now.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Feel free to Be Bold and do so yourself. However, I cannot see how keeping a badly created portal, regardless of the topic, simply because the topic "might" be notable enough for someone else to create a portal that does conform to standards is sufficient cause for the keeping of a portal. If nothing else, a portal should have enough interested editors to maintain it. This one, as is, clearly does not. John Carter 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it should live or die by whether we need it. It doesn't sound like we do. Whether you call it lack of scope, lack of notability, or underpopulation, doesn't matter - I'm not suggesting someone should "fix" a page we don't need. Based on what I've seen, I agree that this Portal fails and we should Delete.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't think he means to be an article, but a resource for including those stats in other articles. Which naturally be sourced then.--
Victor falk 11:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Ooops. Wrong discussion--
Victor falk
11:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom-- Victor falk 14:17, 10 October 2007 (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 miscellany 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 debate was delete Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Celtic FC
Portal page was created two months ago. Page does not in any way conform to standards of portals. Propose deletion without prejudice for recreation if constructed more in conformity with portal standards. Creator of the portal is being notified of this discussion. John Carter 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Carbon Monoxide 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Most certainly in its current condition. -- Eye of the Mind 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Guliolopez 01:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Joe I 19:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure of the scope of this, but it seems to me that it should live or die by whether we need a portal, not the condition of this one. If we don't need a portal for this axe it. If we do, then fix it. What is this "without prejudice for recreation", just fix it now.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Feel free to Be Bold and do so yourself. However, I cannot see how keeping a badly created portal, regardless of the topic, simply because the topic "might" be notable enough for someone else to create a portal that does conform to standards is sufficient cause for the keeping of a portal. If nothing else, a portal should have enough interested editors to maintain it. This one, as is, clearly does not. John Carter 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it should live or die by whether we need it. It doesn't sound like we do. Whether you call it lack of scope, lack of notability, or underpopulation, doesn't matter - I'm not suggesting someone should "fix" a page we don't need. Based on what I've seen, I agree that this Portal fails and we should Delete.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep I don't think he means to be an article, but a resource for including those stats in other articles. Which naturally be sourced then.--
Victor falk 11:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Ooops. Wrong discussion--
Victor falk
11:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom-- Victor falk 14:17, 10 October 2007 (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.