Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Social sciences

 __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:  Speedy keep per efforts of improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Social sciences


Abandoned portal. Subpages were never coded, despite the portal being "under construction" Since 2008, and there is no talk page or inbound activity. I think that's a long enough time to say that this will never get off the ground. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Failure to do WP:BEFORE, particularly point C: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted". Lack of improvement is not a valid deletion rational: see WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not using deletion as cleanup. This portal was clearly DOA, and there has been no effort in NINE YEARS to fix it. That suggests to me that it has no foreseeable purpose, and "improving" it would have no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You argue that because it hasn't been improved fast enough ("there has been no effort in NINE YEARS to fix it") and because it isn't as active as you would like ("Abandoned portal") it should be deleted. Please explain to me how that is not using deletion as cleanup. Your response gets close to offering a deletion rationale, but it's based in alternative facts. You say it has no inbound activity but it has over 200 incoming links and gets at least 30 page views a day and between 700 and 12000 page views per month since 2015 from readers. You say it serves no purpose but clearly editors are linking to it and readers are clicking to it and have been for years. Fix it yourself or leave it alone, but your failure to do WP:BEFORE is not a reason to delete and neither is a page not being improved according to your timeline. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So by your logic, the page could have nothing but "Snargle blargle bloop" but hey, it's getting 200 hits a day, it must be keepable right? Exactly what purpose is the portal serving if it's linking to the same nonexistant subpages day in and day out? I know there's no deadline, but does that just mean we can shit out less than halfassed content because hey, people are clicking on it? People click on obvious vandalism/vanity/test pages too; does that mean they should be kept? In that case, let me make an article at jkasdhlfkjshflkdsa. And hey, people will click on it, so that means it's a useful part of the project. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Curse words and misconstruing my arguments only mask the fact that you've still not made a deletion argument. You are the one that brought up whether it serves a purpose, and when I provide evidence that you should have looked at WP:BEFORE deletion nomination, you start talking about "well what if this page was covered in non-sense". It isn't covered in non-sense. It had a few red links and wasn't complete. What's the point of them? Maybe one day one of those thousands of visitors will click on one and finish the page: the entire purpose of a wiki and redlinks. Wikipedia is a work in progress. I've written two FAs and neither are complete. We don't just delete things because they are incomplete. In fact this whole thing belies your point that you don't intend to use deletion as clean-up. The page doesn't say "Snargle blargle bloop", there is no article jkasdhlfkjshflkdsa because neither of those make sense and cannot conceivably be improved except by removing them. Portal:Social science can in fact be improved through typical editing and already has been by NorthAmerica1000: Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – It's already in place, and can be expanded and improved. I've cleaned up the layout a bit. With 1,011 page views in the last thirty days as of this post, it's already "off the ground". See also: WP:NOEFFORT and There is no deadline. North America1000 18:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Then how about WP:PUTEFFORT as well? There's no point to linking everywhere to a portal that's more red link than content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't take a look at the page after I cleaned it up a bit. After my work there yesterday, there is no red-linked content on the page whatsoever. I hesitate to volunteer more of my time expanding it while it remains nominated for deletion; it would be absurd to expand it just for it to end up being deleted. So, I'll wait. North America1000 02:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So is it ever going to change, or is it still going to sit and rot for years and years just like 99% of other portals? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It already has changed, I made more improvements and additions to it today (UTC time). Again, I hesitate to spend lots of time expanding it while it's nominated for deletion. I could expand it significantly in about an hour, if it's retained. I may volunteer my time to do so later, but these things take time, and again, it's still up for deletion. North America1000 18:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per expansion efforts and arguments advanced by Northamerica1000. Lepricavark (talk) 21:21, 15 February 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.