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 ( non-admin closure) Acather96 ( talk) 11:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Dead portal, contains a lot of redlinks in subpages. JJ98 ( Talk) 23:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) :I will fill it with FA and GA articles - would take me 30 mins to do all....I will not do so until i know its not up for deletion... If you are will to withdraw the nomination i will fill it ASAP. (The portal guy) Moxy ( talk) 03:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete-- hasn't been worked on in over a year. -- E♴ (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Changed to Keep-- if Moxy says he'll fix it then let's keep it. -- E♴ (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Do not Delete-- The Frame Work is ready, The Image-maps are done, the page is also being accessed many times, if possible we can let it evolve as its Important & Useful Topic. A Portal will help in better Navigation of all Related articles. Amol.Gaitonde ( talk) 09:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Immediate keep: I trust the user above will fix it, and I will assist—maybe—. Delete per below. AerobicFox ( talk) 04:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep I'll AGF that Moxy will fix it.-- King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 05:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep under the condition that it be relisted here if the problems are not fixed my Moxy. Other than that, it would be a useful portal. Sy n 07:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Neutral "Obesity is a theory of geology which was developed to explain the observed evidence for large scale motions within the Earth's crust." Amol, if you're going to make an effort to keep the portal, please make sure your facts are right. Hasteur ( talk) 20:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply

It appears to me that Obesity was related to the Human Body, if you suggest any better candidate(s), please suggest and I will add the same. I am a bit challenged to find the best candidates. Please correct if my understanding is not. Amol.Gaitonde ( talk) 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Huh, that's odd, I could have sworn I saw the thing on geology also, but not it isn't. I will help look for worth candidates. AerobicFox ( talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

All but the first word is from Plate tectonics. No idea how it got here. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I went in and fixed the content of the 1st featured article as it was obviously a odd splice from Plate tectonics. I took a significant portion of the lead from obesity (less the references) Hasteur ( talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep I have trust that Moxy will fix it, the portal could be useful. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

:::Will be around tonight and tomorrow Moxy ( talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now Reopen if not fixed LeadSongDog come howl! 23:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I have just received a nasty email about this portal and no-longer will be participating in its construction. Not at all interested in getting involed in some personal fight going on over this portal that i was unaware of. I will not be told what can and cant go into portals. I will leave User:Amol.Gaitonde#MfD nomination of Portal:Human Body a note as to what articles are out there - but will not edit the page. Moxy ( talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Changing my vote to delete then. We don't have much high quality anatomy content anyways, so perhaps this should just be recreated when we do. In the meantime if another user wishes to userfy this page instead of deletion, for working on on a future date then that could be done also. AerobicFox ( talk) 03:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• We ought to have a portal on the human body, and this seems like a reasonable starting point to me. What am I missing?— S Marshall T/ C 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• comment Portals are basically a failed concept, because readers virtually never look at them. This portal gets 10 page views per day, probably almost all from search engines. Once a portal dies, there is no reasonable motivation to work on it (since nobody will ever look at it), and therefore no real reason to keep it. Looie496 ( talk) 17:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

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.