Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cetaceans


 * 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 Keep. Xoloz 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Cetaceans
Inactive and too narrow. cj | talk 05:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this portal has seen significant work since this MfD was posted, so therefore no longer inactive. Narrow? this subject contains hundreds of articles. Death Eater Dan ( Muahaha ) 11:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, serves a purpose and linked to an active (albeit fairly quiet) project. Death Eater Dan ( Muahaha ) 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, usefull portal to link together lots of other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris huh (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 June 2006
 * Keep. It's seen recent edits, and even if only a couple of people use it, it's harmless.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 18:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost speedy keep. This is one of the better-made portals I've ever seen. It is clearly useful (regardless of whether it is edited regularly or not,) and I see no valid reason given for deletion. Grand  master  ka  06:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The portal has changed entirely from the state it was in upon nomination. Still, I maintain it is an inappropriate topic.--cj | talk 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right... I abstain because I'm not one to judge if it's an appropriate topic for a portal or not... Seems valid to me though. Grand  master  ka  08:01, 12 June 2006 (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.