- 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 debate was No consensus, defaulting to keep Tikiwont ( talk) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Empty and also just over 100 articles. Wanted to know if this is enough for a portal.
- Delete - last edited in 2007 (discounting the MfD notice) and has been 'broken' with most of the subpages missing since that time. Has a rather narrow scope, and Portal:Toys can cover this. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:30, June 11, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No useful content because all of the subpages are missing. WP:LEGO can always restart this if they want to. However, I don't see the point of keeping around under-populated portals with nothing on them. Mm 40 ( talk | contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletewith no prejudice to recreation of a decent portal. I've been bold and tried to create subpages, but I messed up in the names, and I don't think I'm enough knowledgeable to make a decent portal anyway (DYKs and so on), but if some users are motivated... There are three or four "featurable" articles that portal:Lego may use, some other decent articles for DYKs and free pictures. It's not much, granted, and I think that Lego articles should remain a priority. Cenarium (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Change to Keep. With the recent changes, it's presentable for readers, and workable for editors. Cenarium Talk 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - with recent changes. There is enough content here to make a portal reasonable. Generally, around 30 "well-developed" articles is sufficient for a portal, "well-developed" meaning Start-class or better. This subject does meet that number of decent articles. John Carter ( talk) 15:18, 14 June 2008 (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 debate was No consensus, defaulting to keep Tikiwont ( talk) 08:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Empty and also just over 100 articles. Wanted to know if this is enough for a portal.
- Delete - last edited in 2007 (discounting the MfD notice) and has been 'broken' with most of the subpages missing since that time. Has a rather narrow scope, and Portal:Toys can cover this. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:30, June 11, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No useful content because all of the subpages are missing. WP:LEGO can always restart this if they want to. However, I don't see the point of keeping around under-populated portals with nothing on them. Mm 40 ( talk | contribs) 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Deletewith no prejudice to recreation of a decent portal. I've been bold and tried to create subpages, but I messed up in the names, and I don't think I'm enough knowledgeable to make a decent portal anyway (DYKs and so on), but if some users are motivated... There are three or four "featurable" articles that portal:Lego may use, some other decent articles for DYKs and free pictures. It's not much, granted, and I think that Lego articles should remain a priority. Cenarium (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Change to Keep. With the recent changes, it's presentable for readers, and workable for editors. Cenarium Talk 02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - with recent changes. There is enough content here to make a portal reasonable. Generally, around 30 "well-developed" articles is sufficient for a portal, "well-developed" meaning Start-class or better. This subject does meet that number of decent articles. John Carter ( talk) 15:18, 14 June 2008 (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.