Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zelda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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. Rename was considered, but rejected in light of Zelda II. Xoloz (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Zelda

There is almost no activity at this portal, the series is not so active that it needs a whole portal. Correct me if I am wrong, but the scope and limited contributions to it mean this topic doesn't need a portal. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• (Speedy) Keep. Lack of activity is not a reason for deletion. This topic obviously has enough articles to warrant a portal. --- RockMFR 06:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  I can't seem to find it stated anywhere, but I thought lack of activity actually was a valid reason for portal deletion. Can anyone point me to this, or am I incorrect? Pagrashtak 19:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't often give 'Keep' votes being a deletionist, but this portal definitely deserves it. It does have enough scope, the Zelda series has at least 15 games with myriad notable characters and locations. ><RichardΩ612 11:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment- Well then please explain to me how lack of activity and narrow scope allowed the World of Wacraft portal to be deleted, and this one has the same amount of activity. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So, do you mean to say that this might be a little bit of a pointy nomination? You may notice that WOW is one game (with a couple expansions, sure) whereas Zelda is a lot of games spanning at least 15 years, I think. A direct comparison is folly. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I know nothing of the WoW portal deletion, and furthermore, per WP:ALLORNOTHING it doesn't matter if a similar page is deleted, each page is discussed on its individual credentials. ><RichardΩ612 20:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Inactivity isn't a reason for deletion. I've been meaning to take a look at this portal, but have been attending to other projects. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If inactivity and a very narrow focus is not reason to not have a portal, then what is? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep inactivity is more a reason for deletion when the portal isn't complete and doesn't look like it will ever be. This one is complete and kept up to date. - Koweja (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The purpose of a portal is to act as "useful entry-points to Wikipedia content". This portal is well constructed according to WP:PORTAL. Inactivity does not make a good portal bad. I do not see any detrimental aspects of maintaining this portal. It does seem to enhance the topic rather than harm anything.--12 Noon ^2¢ 18:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename—I don't deal with portals too much, but it seems to me that this should be Portal:The Legend of Zelda. Pagrashtak 18:36, 1 January 2008 (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.