Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pokémon (2nd nomination)

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, and it appears that efforts to address this may be begining, further disucssion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon and Portal talk:Pokémon is encouraged. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Pokémon

This page is abandoned, and nobody wants to maintain it. It's useless since the main Pokemon article explains everything. To fix this page would mean a complete revamp, but it would be copying information already in the article.--_ZXCVBNM 23:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks fine to me. The subject has hundreds of articles, and the portal doesn't look abandoned. WP:SOFIXIT. --- RockMFR 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: Uhh, it hasn't had a major edit since March. Also, the "hundreds of articles" are currently in the process of being merged into lists, due to their hard-to-maintain and crufty nature. I don't think anyone goes to the portal anyway, since there's a Pokemon article with the same information. --_ZXCVBNM 04:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  He said nobody will maintain it so WP:SOFIXIT doesn't really apply here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dinosaur puppy (talk • contribs).

• Not sure. For now the portal is abandoned, but Pokemon is such a topic that having a portal is not altogether ridiculous if someone maintains it. Since no one is maintaining it, I'd lean toward delete. Shalom ^Hello 05:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. T Rex | talk 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hold on. The nom was premature, there's discussion in progress on the concerned WikiProject Talk Page to see if anyone turns up to help maintain it. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hold on This action is another in a line of premature actions... a deletion page shouldn't even exist yet. However, the seven days given to an XfD should be long enough to see if anyone else wants to maintain it. two days is hardly enough time to correctly assume that there is no one interested in maintaining the portal. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note The nominator is also misinformed about the portal, as Jully 11 was the last time the portal was edited. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note on the note that's a graphics tweak... Spriteless 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Minor errata Um, 5 days for an MfD, Zapper. Not 7. Still enough time, though. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, and certainly fix it up so it's not so ugly. If maintained it could be OK, but otherwise it should probably be deleted. Andre (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hold on per all above, although I doubt that anyone will actually end up wanting to maintain it. Delete if nobody will mantain it, of course, we don't need bad portals that nobody will fix. -128.12.68.95 20:55, 2 August 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.