Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:M*A*S*H


 * 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. Argument that "editors appear uninterested" is contradicted by the fact that interested editors joined the debate here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:M*A*S*H
Orphaned portal, hasn't been updated for months. No Wiki Project to support upkeep, editors appear uninterested, making this portal redundant to the main M*A*S*H articles. -- Wikipedical 02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical 02:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's abandoned. -- Selmo  (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The last edits I can find were to Portal:M*A*S*H/Things you can do 2 days ago, Portal:M*A*S*H/M*A*S*H news on Dec 3, 2006 and Portal:M*A*S*H/Featured article on Dec 3, 2006. All three of these are of course transcluded into the Portal. Does'nt look like abandoned to me, and I've had nothing to do with it until I saw it up for deletion here at MfD. --Bduke 07:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There's only two very recent edits as of January 17, the rest are from March 2006 and beyond. It does seem abandoned to me. -- Tohru Honda13 Talk•Sign here 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This Portal transcludes 7 other subpages. There of them have been edited in the last two months. There has been a total of 36 edits in the last 12 months to the main artcile and the specific transcluded pages. It might not be very active, but it is false to say it has been abandoned. Also most Portals do not get a lot of edits. Once fixed, they stay, with perhaps changes to news and featured article - two of those that have been changed here. --Bduke 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The fact that a portal might be abandoned alone is not a reason for it's deletion until stated so in the deletion policy. There are plenty of both unupdated portals and articles who serve a strong informative purpose. Besides, if you aren't happy with how the portal is handled, be bold and update it.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per michaelas10, also even if the portal is currently inactive, it might be active later on, deleting it wouldn't serve any benefit to the Wikipedia community. RiseRobotRise 04:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix up. Really all it needs is a little love :). But honestly, if someone were to make the portal have automated changes to the selected content like most portals would. It wouldn't need constant updating. And really just because it has been inactive for a while is not a great reason to judge for deletion. We would have a lot of deleted portals.  Arjun  04:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per michaelas10 and Bduke.  Jo  e  I  22:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per michaelas10 and Bduke. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly not inactive. If it ever becomes inactive, it can be tagged as such. No policy basis for deletion mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 22 January 2007 (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.