Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica (2nd nomination)

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica[edit]

Nothing in this half built long abandoned portal has any direct focus on the portal topic. It's all generic prehistory stuff. The portal survived the last deletion discussion, not on it's own merits but on an inapproriate close by a non-Admin. Legacypac (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not ideal, but can be reworked or archived. The portal RfC found consensus against deleting or deprecating portals. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than to say that. The Portal RFC was about all Portals not individual portals and does not insulate individual failures from deletion. Legacypac (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty typical portal. It should be automated or archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I've been working on it. Take a look. — The Transhumanist 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy. Abyssal (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been abandoned too long to justify userfying Legacypac (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, that is very misleading. As you well know, the Portals WikiProject was dormant for years until April 17th, when it was rebooted and a new team assembled. We are getting up to speed fast, but it is unreasonable for you expect us to have everything fixed instantly. We are in the process of inspecting and assessing the entire collection of portals, and we are developing tools to develop and maintain these more easily. — The Transhumanist 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abyssal:, with the new tools WikiProject Portals has developed, it doesn't take that much time anymore to build and maintain a portal. That's because we've made manual copying and pasting excerpts for portals a thing of the past, with the templates {{Transclude lead excerpt}} and {{Transclude random excerpt}}. I see you have SearchSuite installed. So, all you have to do to see a list of all the article titles with "Antarctica" in them, is search for intitle:Antarctica. Make sure you turn off SR details in the sidebar menu to the left. Then it is an easy matter to spot and add the article titles relevant to the portal. I hope these tips help. — The Transhumanist 19:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I certainly wouldn't want to spend time updating the page, and I wouldn't want anyone else to waster their time doing it either. Zarasophos (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is now constructed – @Zarasophos: Due to the tools mentioned above, building portals is easier and a lot more fun than it used to be. I've used {{Transclude random excerpt}} in the top section to provide excerpts via selective transclusion that will always match the source page from which the text was taken, and therefore they'll never go stale. — The Transhumanist 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that there are enthusiastic editors willing to support it and the portal looks good. I see no problem re-introducing this to MFD because the mass discussion has now concluded. The only reasons I see given for deletion are variations of "no one is working on it"; "it is incomplete"; "I don't like it"; and "no one else should like it either" -- not in those words, of course... but at their roots those are all the deletion arguments. I have to respond with There is no deadline; Wikipedia is a work in progress; "I don't like it is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions; and ... on the last one, well, I don't think people should spend time on this one either--but that's not my call. Editors are free to be enthusiastic about whatever topics they choose. Barring those, I see no reason to delete that remains--no policy is being violated, no guideline broken... and the portal appears to be intact with a good amount of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is lots of things to add and the portal is an ideal way to alert readers to describe new genera, formations and families, see addition. Tisquesusa (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of recent updates is not a valid reason for deletion. This is a slippery slope argument and would open the door to other pages (articles or other spaces) that get deleted for the only reason that nobody edited it lately. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.