Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sarah Lawrence College

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 delete. Picaroon 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Sarah Lawrence College

Stagnant portal with no content. Topic doesn't seem to merit a Portal. thunderboltz^(TALK) 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Includes the subpages Portal:Sarah Lawrence College/box-header and Portal:Sarah Lawrence College/box-footer.

• Delete. Just misses a P2, but should be deleted anyway due to the complete lack of content and the narrowness of the topic. --ais523 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. 3 months is enough time for somebody to have added some content. —Doug Bell ^talk 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not a fan of removing a portal solely due to lack of content or inactiveness, and this one passes criteria WP:CSD#P2 having five non-stub articles besides the main one rather than two. However, I incline to take a dimmer view of this case seeing as many of those may either be a subject to AfD (e.g. Sarah Lawrence College in popular culture) or a merge with the main article. Concluding all the existing information on the topic following the changes, I don't believe they are sufficient to uphold a complete portal. Maybe a selected article on the schools portal. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete To much of a small scope for a portal, no actual information, I think Michaelas10 and [*[WP:CSD#P2]] cover it well.Tellyaddict 17:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, the CSD doesn't work; there are three non-stub articles and a main article on the subject! On the other hand, WP:CSD#P1 onto A3 almost seems to fit. --ais523 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Moreover, I've never said it does fit that criteria. There are a few other things taken into consideration here that might warrant the portals's deletion instead of speedy deletion. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a page full of redlinks, and no need for a portal for a college unless it's broad enough to get a portal. Wooyi 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Joe I 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, scope is too little. - Mailer Diablo 11:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete portal and subpages. Much too narrow a scope to begin with, and no useful content either. Clearly abandoned by the creator in Dec 2006. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am strongly against having a portal with just one topic. All of them with such a narrow topic I feel should be deleted. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:26, 25 March 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.