Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Information technology


 * 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 keep.  нмŵוτн τ  18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Information technology
While this portal may be pretty, it's never updated and has no active maintainers. Repeated requests for signs of life go unanswered. Please delete all related subpages. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per sofixit and there was a response to one of your posts from a user saying he or she checked it often. It hasn't been added to in any substantive way since early to mid 2006 but then, it's a Portal.  It has sufficient scope and contains appropriate and useful information.  Consider telling some of the projects that cover this topic that the Portal is going unused.  Merger might be appropriate if there are other good portals to merge with, but this is very well organized (yes, I know they used a template, but at least they filled it out) for an inactive portal (besides portals don't have members so it's unfortunate but common for them to be unmaintained).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Doug.. It might not be being altered much, but it contains useful links. That is what Portals are for. --Bduke (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep inactivity is not a reason for deletion. LaMenta3 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, with the additional note that once-viable portals and projects that are no longer active should be tagged with Historical, not brought to MfD . -- jonny - m t  16:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Historical is not for portals, rather, for Wikipedia: pages that are relevant to maintaining and keeping Wikipedia in order. Portals exist primarily for readers, and so this kind of tag is inappropriate. Spebi 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I stand corrected about the use of Historical for portals. Thank you for the information. -- jonny - m  t  05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above, and suggest closing this discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is an appropriate portal with a clear and useful scope. Its only problem is that it is undermaintained, and I don't see that as a good enough reason to delete it. - Neparis (talk) 01:58, 2 February 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.