Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Television in Australia

 __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 Keep No argument for deletion presented, and perfection is not required. Ebe 123 → report on my contribs. 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Television in Australia


Dead portal. No one is maintained it since 2008. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep- No argument for deletion has been presented. There is no rule that says pages can be deleted if they haven't been edited for X amount of time. Reyk  YO!  00:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually no content has been edited since 2007. Let's get real here! Television portals must be kept up to date otherwise they are of no value. No one is going to find it practical to use a 2007 guide to the state and content of television in 2011. Of course, if someone undertakes to update this (to 2011!) I'd be happy to change my view. -- Klein zach  03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Agree with rationale as presented by, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kleinzach. Show me where it says it's okay for untouched, redlinky crap to sit gathering dust forever and a day. It makes the project look bad. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me where it says content has a use-by date. Reyk  YO!  02:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep see noones working on it isnt a valid reason for deletion. Gnangarra 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Don't hope the house will build itself is not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the nomination rationale isnt valid as described by WP:DEL which is the basis for my keep, I could have just closed these nominations rather than express an opinion but given the number its significant to first highlight the relevant reasons as to why. Gnangarra 03:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:DEL doesn't mention the portal namespace, however it could be argued that out-of-date portals are covered by "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". If you look at the reasons for deletions they are quite broad and include redundancy, obsolescence etc. -- Klein zach  04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - portals are not necessarily oriented to updates to the last minute - and many are slow on the uptake - it is worth turning this around and getting somebody to update it rather than drop/delete it SatuSuro 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - with the clean-up User:Dl2000 provided, it looks fine. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Preserve this portal, as an additional browsing option and to be expanded. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2011 (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.