Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Viruses

 __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 - portals are stupid, but if people want to make and use them, there's no harm in letting them do so. Which isn't an argument for keeping the portal, but does mean that an argument for deleting the portal must be made (and given the headcount, made effectively). "Maybe not viable?" is not a strong argument for deletion - I don't see any reason to believe that, so I can give it strong weight (a cursory examination suggests it's as good as any other portal). Too broad to be viable doesn't stand up to the "But Portal:Science does fine!" retort. "Not currently being maintained" isn't an argument I can give much weight either - Wikipedia is a work in progress, to be sure, but we're working towards a goal where further maintenance isn't necessary, if this portal got there first - good for it! Without a good argument for deletion, and with a headcount strongly favouring keep, that's where this must go. Wily D 06:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Viruses


This is not going anywhere and does not contain anything that is not covered by the, albeit, semi-dormant WikiProject Viruses. I don't think a Portal for viruses is viable; they are too diverse. The page has only ten edits, most of which where made in 2011, two years ago. Graham Colm (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep a WikiProject is not a Portal, or vice versa. They serve completely different functions. As for "diversity", every broad topic portal would need to be deleted under that rationale. -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I know it doesn't look much, but I believe it could have potential in the future. It's been there for a long time, It's not doing any harm by being there. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it has been there for a relatively long time (two years) but with no activity since its inception. "Doing no harm" is an argument that should be avoided. The purpose of portals is to "help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content." But apart from displaying the same abstracts of five articles in rotation and listing a few categories, this page is a dead end. Portals need to be regularly maintained, updated and show what a busy site Wikipedia is. I can't see the point of setting one up and then abandoning it a few weeks later. Graham Colm (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you'd need to delete most portals, since most of them are not that active either. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. As mentioned above WP:NOHARM is invalid. I'm not big on the portal space as a whole, but this one seems a clear-cut case of someone building a portal just because it's cool, then abandoning it. If no one wants to support it, then it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole point of portals is to clump editors together so as to stimulate collaboration. The more portals there are, the more diluted the pool of editors gets. This is a long-inactive skeleton. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is the point of WikiProjects. Portals are not for editors to collaborate on articles, they are for readers to access the articles. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Portals are not for WikiProjects, but for readers to serve as a portal of entry to the topic. I don't think the group of viruses is too diverse for a portal, there are featured portals on much broader topics (eg Science, Biology). I have some experience with portals, and would be willing to do some work to broaden and improve this one, on behalf of the WikiProject. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The subject is important, and others must have put a lot of work into it. I don't understand the efficiency of portals, but some appear to value it. I think portals should be cross wiki (to link to wikinews, wikisource, wikipedia and wikiversity together, and be transcluded from a central point) to be a real gateway to information. Sidelight 12 Talk 08:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly a net asset to our readers for information and navigation.Moxy (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2013 (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.