- 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 Keep, also marked as {{ inactive}} though not per the MFD. — xaosflux Talk 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Transylvania
Portal is poorly constructed and has had no activity since January. Pictures are nice, but a few words wouldn't hurt too. No mention of Dracula either. And, if you're wondering, I think I'm finished with the portals for awhile. John Carter 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing is here that's not already in the Transylvania article. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- KeepSo what if it's poorly constructed, then someone should fix it. Portals aren't projects, they don't need members or multiple editors to exist - though of course that would be nice. Unless the suggestion is that this is too narrow in scope/not notable enough for a portal or there is inappropriate content, I don't see why we'd want to delete it. It's like a stub article, it just needs work - granted a lot of it.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - True. However, without that work, and it has received no attention since January, it remains in the sad state it is. And, as a portal, it by definition has no unique content which would be at risk if it is deleted. While perhaps someone "should" fix it, although I personally question the indication that others "should" have to further the work others have apparently abandoned, those individuals would presumably then be obliged to maintain this portal as well. I honestly wonder whether anyone would be willing to take on the responsibility of developing and maintaining such an abortive effort. Certainly, if the portal were to be recreated by an individual interested in maintaining it, I would have no objections. But I cannot see that anyone should be obliged to continue and maintain the work the creators have seemingly abandoned in this unfinished state. John Carter 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Poorly constructed, not maintained, are no reasons. If we did that with articles, I think at least three quarters of wikipedia would get deleted. It may change at any time (and now is a good oocasion, anybody showing some {{ sofixit}} spirit will get a barnstar from me :) -- Victor falk 10:16, 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 Keep, also marked as {{ inactive}} though not per the MFD. — xaosflux Talk 03:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Transylvania
Portal is poorly constructed and has had no activity since January. Pictures are nice, but a few words wouldn't hurt too. No mention of Dracula either. And, if you're wondering, I think I'm finished with the portals for awhile. John Carter 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing is here that's not already in the Transylvania article. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 01:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- KeepSo what if it's poorly constructed, then someone should fix it. Portals aren't projects, they don't need members or multiple editors to exist - though of course that would be nice. Unless the suggestion is that this is too narrow in scope/not notable enough for a portal or there is inappropriate content, I don't see why we'd want to delete it. It's like a stub article, it just needs work - granted a lot of it.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - True. However, without that work, and it has received no attention since January, it remains in the sad state it is. And, as a portal, it by definition has no unique content which would be at risk if it is deleted. While perhaps someone "should" fix it, although I personally question the indication that others "should" have to further the work others have apparently abandoned, those individuals would presumably then be obliged to maintain this portal as well. I honestly wonder whether anyone would be willing to take on the responsibility of developing and maintaining such an abortive effort. Certainly, if the portal were to be recreated by an individual interested in maintaining it, I would have no objections. But I cannot see that anyone should be obliged to continue and maintain the work the creators have seemingly abandoned in this unfinished state. John Carter 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Poorly constructed, not maintained, are no reasons. If we did that with articles, I think at least three quarters of wikipedia would get deleted. It may change at any time (and now is a good oocasion, anybody showing some {{ sofixit}} spirit will get a barnstar from me :) -- Victor falk 10:16, 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.