Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Artemis Fowl




 * 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 discussion was  delete. There is consensus for userfying the portal (and I will do so at request), but no individual editor or group (including WikiProject Artemis Fowl, which was notified of this discussion) has expressed a concrete interest in working on the portal. I will post a link to the deletion log page that lists all pages associated with the portal so that they can be undeleted and userfied at any time by any administrator. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And here it is. Please note that several of the deleted pages contained little or no content or page history, so there may be no need to undelete and userfy them (of course, doing so would cause no harm). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Artemis Fowl
Too narrow scope for a portal (Portal guidelines). Also, the portal's categorized as under construction, but hasn't been edited in a year and a half (not counting vandalism). --Shubinator (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (tentatively) the books have a following, albeit not as big as Harry Potter, and has the potential to be quite decent. I might have a look later myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Delete as incomplete and unmaintained portal, if Casliber doesn't pick it up. I give Casliber permission to strikethrough this !vote in its entirety depending on what they decide. Gigs (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because this portal does not meet our portal guidelines, and has not since its creation. Parts of our portal guidelines that are not met here:
 * "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section."
 * "The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete."
 * "The portal should be maintained"
 * Required portal content: Related portals, topics
 * Recommended portal content: Selected article

I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artemis Fowl to see if there's any interest in userfying this portal (or, optimally, fixing/maintaining it). If Casliber wants to move it to his userspace, I'd have no problem with that. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Editor involved seems to be still alive on WP. If Casliber has faith in the potential for the portal, so do I. Collect (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the series to judge whether it's "big enough" for a portal, but the current contents of the portal (one selected article and one selected character out of a rotation of five) definitely aren't sufficient to consider it finished. If the author (or anyone else) is still interested in completing the portal, then they are of course free to do so, but - if not - there's little point in keeping the portal up. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy, assuming that User:Legoktm or some other user wants it. It isn't a good portal now, and maybe it never will be, but the author of the books is still active so there is definitely opportunity for future expansion. Since the topic isn't inherently impossible as a portal, there's no harm in allowing it to be worked on in user space. --RL0919 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (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.