Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Green Politics


 * 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 Delete as abandoned, without prejudice for recreation in line with the portal guidelines. — xaosflux  Talk  02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Green Politics
At best, this should be userfied until it is complete, as it is a poor representation of Wikipedia's quality to readers who happen across it. Skomorokh 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) *Keep. As Serviam said, poor quality doesn't equal deletion. We have many more stub and tagged articles than we might GA's and FA's, but that doesn't mean they aren't as worthy of being kept. Wikipedia is a wonderful, wonderful idea, and eventually I envision a world where all the articles are as a high a quality as this one. But until then, we have to accept that "wikipedia's quality" isn't as high as we'd like it to be; this does nothing to misrepresent that. Ironholds 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Created and last updated on January 4, 2008.
 * Contains nothing but a description of Green Politics and a list of things to do, making it more akin to a nascent WikiProject than a Portal.
 * The creator and sole contributor has not edited since January.
 * Keep bad quality is no reason for deletion, otherwise we'd lose about a million articles.-- Serviam  (talk)  18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad quality is a reason for deletion. Please explain your self. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Has no meaningful content. The intro is only the beggining of Green politics. All the pictures seem to have been deleted. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 21:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but have you examined the "portal" in question? It simply replicates the description from the green politics article, and contains no selected images, articles, biographies, news or DYK's –– that is to say it does not in any way function as a portal. Skomorokh  04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like it is in the process of being expanded, hence my vote. Forgive me; i'm afraid i missed the point further up the page that it hasn't been edited since january. The user seems to have for all intents and purposes vanished, So i'd like to change to move to userspace. My apologies again for not reading it correctly. Iron<b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, thank you for your integrity. Skomorokh  04:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete until it can be worked on by more experienced editors who are not likely to vanish. I'm not sure userfying to an inactive user's userspace is the best option here. Also, was anyone notified that this exists? A relevant wikiproject maybe? Someone (anyone) who edits the related articles? &mdash; Maggot Syn 09:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice for recreation if it made more compliant with portal guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The quality of this isn't the worst I've seen, but its still not very good. Also, the chances of it growing seem to be grim. A very small portal, without hope of growing, doesn't help the encyclopedia.--SJP (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (or less preferably, Userfy). Low quality portal, very little content, no sign that it's being worked on or used at all. This is an acceptable topic for a portal, but not if it looks like this. Terraxos (talk) 23:46, 17 June 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.