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

 __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: Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 00:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Flodden


A hardly viewed portal (24 pageviews in 90 days, including 8 when it was transformed into an "automated" portal) for a single battle. Too limited a topic to be useful as an alternative main page, and consequently not used as such by our readers. Fram (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the selected image is the same as the main article image. Useless clutter to delay the poor lost reader who finds this when the article is the answer. Legacypac (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not sure why this was kept in 2015 as it seems to have been abandoned incomplete and the creator has not edited since 29 April 2015. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a weird MFD result - 4 editors said delete and zero editors said keep but closed as keep. Legacypac (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Flodden, which was closed with an incorrect supervote not reflecting the discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural delete as supervote. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've no idea why I kept that. The only thing I can think of is that there is another MfD closed as delete that should have been keep. In other words I mixed up two MfD's. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This could have been taken to Deletion Review in 2015, but here we are, so this is an abandoned portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this was NOT deleted in error I think we can speedy it as a G6 technical deletion where a delete decision was reached but not implemented. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I respectfully disagree with User:Legacypac. An incorrect closure three or four years ago is not a technical deletion.  It can be taken either to Deletion Review or to MFD again.  We are here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2019 (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.