Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Creationism

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Creationism

This portal has been unused since 26 September 2006 and the only editor has been inactive since 26 October 2006. The portal has never been active. Naconkantari 04:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin - the delete rationales are invalid per this link indicating the portal is neither abandoned or unmaintained. Addhoc 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per a similar discussion Here. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, inactive and abandoned portal. --Coredesat 05:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Joe I 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an inactive, unmaintained portal. --Cyde Weys 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete it's an unused portal. Acalamari 17:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep we can reactivate it, because it's a very important issue that people need to explore. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not really. There isn't a WikiProject for creationism, and there is also not a portal on evolution, which is opposite to creationism. This isn't likely to be maintained. --Coredesat 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, delete it for now then I guess, but should such WikiProject be established one day it should be reestablished. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, inactive.--Wizardman 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design, which so far as I can tell doesn't have a portal. I have notified the members of that project of this discussion. John Carter 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to inactivity Bushcarrot (Talk·Guestbook) 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - you don't need a WikiProject to maintain a portal, only a group of interested users. It could be as small as one, but as long the template is more or less maintained, there's not an issue. If anyone wants to pick this portal up, consider this a keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you be willing to put a conditional on that? Say it is kept in the hope that somebody will adopt it. Would you be willing to tack on some condition that: if, in a month, nobody has adopted this portal, it can be speedily deleted as inactive without having to go through the process again? I understand the wishful feelings behind the "hopefully somebody will pick it up" keep rationales, but let's be realistic: it probably won't, and then we'd just end up back here soon enough again. --Cyde Weys 03:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I mean if someone willingly picks up during this MFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps the reason it hasn't been edited in several months is that it is reasonably complete. I'm against the idea that portals (or articles) that haven't been edited in a while are "unmaintained" and should be deleted, and it hasn't been all that long since the last edit. If a portal is unmaintained, someone can come along later and spruce it up; but if it is deleted, the task of recreating a portal from scratch might seem daunting to potential editors. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I edited the portal this month, so don't fully understand the inactive comment. Addhoc 17:57, 14 April 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.