Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptozoology

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: redirect to Cryptozoology. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Cryptozoology


Inactive. Has not been substantially updated in a very long time. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 23:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - After having read it, it does not appear to have POV issues, could still be useful as a navigation aid (the role of Portals) and is also linked from the WikiProject Cryptozoology tag. — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the history, consider archiving, do not delete. See Wikipedia_talk:Portal.  I suggest redirecting most portals to their parent article.  Redirect this one to Cryptozoology.  No reader is well served by landing at Portal:Cryptozoology, it is old, out of date, no one else goes there.  Current content is maintained at Cryptozoology, and questions can be asked at Talk:Cryptozoology.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as portals are almost all useless/hard to maintain/so 1990s. I'd accept Smokey's redirect plan too. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Legacypac, I think Wikipedia_talk:Portal has a clear emerging consensus for archiving of most Portals, archiving by a method to be decided. Simply "archive"?  Redirect to the parent article (my preference)?  Redirect to the WikiProject page (I think no, they are mostly almost as moribund).  There is an open question of what level of activity to leave some Portals alone.  However, there is clearly a consensus contrary to deletion, so it would be more collegially productive if you would stop with the kneejerk "delete"s.  They create an appearance of a lack of emerging consensus.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Archiving/redirection somewhere is essentially deletion. Redirecting to morbid wikiprojects is Pointless and crosses from Public space to Project space. Voting keep on these goes against to "emerging consensus" to archive/redirect them. If we can build up a track record of portals being archived/redirected at MfD we build consensus for a wholesale approach. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the bolding to correct my !vote, as originally intended. I will support "redirection to the parent article" for any Portal that is barely viewed and rarely updated.  Building up a track record of doing this should help, yes.  I shouldn't have bolded "keep", I do not think it should be "kept as-is".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2017 (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.