- 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, at least until we're sure that it won't be finished and maintained. Tikiwont ( talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Geoffrey Chaucer
Please remember to also delete subpages:
Incomplete portal. The author has not edited since August 2008. B ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the author has edited recently (in the last year) and this shows some promise for being developed into something, unlike some of the other nominations. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath ( talk) 06:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Incomplete portal, doesn't seem to show potential. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep August 2008 is not an eternity ago. No solid reason given for deletion. Collect ( talk) 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It certainly won't be the most active portal (not much new Chaucer stuff coming up nowadays) but not many portals are. And there's still a chance that the user will get around to finishing this (heck, I have things sitting around in my userspace from months ago). Politizer talk/ contribs 05:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia can spare a few kilobytes for a scholarly portal, even if it's a slow one. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 04:44, 4 February 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, at least until we're sure that it won't be finished and maintained. Tikiwont ( talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Geoffrey Chaucer
Please remember to also delete subpages:
Incomplete portal. The author has not edited since August 2008. B ( talk) 05:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep the author has edited recently (in the last year) and this shows some promise for being developed into something, unlike some of the other nominations. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath ( talk) 06:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Incomplete portal, doesn't seem to show potential. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep August 2008 is not an eternity ago. No solid reason given for deletion. Collect ( talk) 12:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It certainly won't be the most active portal (not much new Chaucer stuff coming up nowadays) but not many portals are. And there's still a chance that the user will get around to finishing this (heck, I have things sitting around in my userspace from months ago). Politizer talk/ contribs 05:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia can spare a few kilobytes for a scholarly portal, even if it's a slow one. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 04:44, 4 February 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.