Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Isle of Man

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 I've asked around at the UK portal and wikiproject if they'd mind merging this there, or if there's someone who's willing to bring this up to par. In the current form it is unfit as a portal, so unless it is improved in the next few days I'm going to merge it to the UK portal, or move it to Wikispace. >Radiant< 11:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Isle of Man

"Under construction" since July 2006. I did a little bit of work on it, but really don't think there is enough for regular updates. the wub "?!" 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unmaintained.--cj | talk 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In a recent discussion here, the consensus was that being unmaintained was not a reason for deletion of a Portal seemed to be the conclusion. The Portal is still attractive and usefull. It is also not strictly correct that it has not been altered since July last. A Portal is the sum of its transcluded parts. The featured article was changed in January. The Intro was edited last September as was the Related Portals. It can stay until someone from the I of M wants to add to it. --Bduke 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  Could you point me to this recent discussion?--cj | talk 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro Last edit 4th September.

Selected article Created 13 January

Related portals Last edited 21 January

Selected picture Just changed, 2 February

News Lst edited 20 November

I have not checked the others. All these are transcuded into the portal and all have been changed since last July. --Bduke 11:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, do you recall the link to the page at which a consensus supposedly developed with regard to unmaintained arguments for deletion?--cj | talk 11:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:M*A*S*H which was kept even though similar arguments of being unmaintained were put forward. The cases are similar but not exactly the same. --Bduke 12:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note the edits to Selected Article and Intro were by me, and I was just filling them with something because they were non-existent before. I don't intend to maintain this portal in future. the wub "?!" 17:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, portal has not been edited since July 2006 apart from the MFD nomination. I treat it as its abandoned. Its not updated and I think if its in this state, then it is useless to have such a portal. Terence Ong 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. See above. Its included pages have been edited. The portal page is nothing. The content is the transcluded articles. --Bduke 11:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, none of the transluded articles you mentioned have really been edited though since september/november 2006. The only new thing is that someone changed the picture of the day. (for the first time). Garion96 (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Another MfD where "unmaintained portal" wasn't found to be a reason for deletion was less than two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Belarus. In the Isle of Man case, the structure and the wikilinks are useful enough for a current user to get benefit, and will be useful as a base for future expansion when interested people decide to work on it. The first few pages of a Google search, and the first couple of pages of a Google Books search, show a variety of sources including some independent reliable sources, both general and on specific topics. This is expandable (it's not a too-small topic that's played out), there are many people with interest (though apparently not Wikipedia editors), and this is better than starting from scratch. Also, since the wub made some improvements, there doesn't appear to be much that is bad or confusing; it's just in need of expansion and a wikiproject (at least a couple of active editors) to support it. Barno 17:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Some reader may find this useful, and if some editor later does want to maintain an Isle of Man portal, it would be nice for it to already be there for them. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - so what if it's not currently maintained? We have many articles that are not maintained, is that ground for deletion too? Even if the portal was bad (and this one isn't, it's just pretty static), that would just be reason to improve it, not to delete it. The only thing that we should be deciding here is whether we should have a portal for the Isle of Man or not. I'd say we should. Zocky | picture popups 01:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Should be relatively easy to update this. I see no grounds for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintained and uncompleted. We don't need unmaintained portals filled with red links. And the equivalence argument about "so what if it's not currently maintained? We have many articles that are not maintained" is faulty reasoning. Portals serve a different function than articles and we should make sure they are completed, useful, and maintained. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:34, 6 February 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.