Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare

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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Biological warfare

Featured portal, schmeatured portal. It hasn't been updated in over a year, and literally 100% of the content was created by one user (Cirt). This one's just gathering dust. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Your policy-based reason for deletion is? (1) "It hasn't been updated in over a year". What in the portal is out of date? Any reason why you didn't fix it yourself or raise a note on the portal talk page? (2) "literally 100% of the content was created by one user" - now that's not a reason for deletion, is it? Your claim is also "literally 100%" wrong: the first "selected article" I checked, Japanese war crimes, was not written by Cirt, nor was the first "selected biological agent", ricin. (3) "This one's just gathering dust". See (1). Bencherlite ^Talk 19:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - does not qualify to be nominated for deletion in anyway.Moxy (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Wikipedia articles and portals don't need to be constantly updated to be valid and encyclopedic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete per nom.~~ Content is not up to date (e.g. Portal:Biological warfare/Selected anniversaries was last updated in 2009). I'd be happy to change my opinion if someone could undertake to maintain it. This would be the best outcome. (The suggestion that the nominator might fix it himself sounds a bit like harassment, no Bencherlite?) --Klein zach 01:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is, it's sanctioned - WP:SOFIXIT is a guideline. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Actually that's just a link to Be bold. --Klein zach 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- absolutely no reason for deletion has been presented. There is no rule that says any page should be deleted just because it has not been edited for a while. Reyk _YO! 03:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator failed to note the portal is setup so that it doesn't have to be updated regularly. Additional content can just be easily proposed discussed and added into rotation. — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cirt: Thank you for your note on my talk page undertaking to maintain this portal. Accordingly, I'm ~~striking through~~ my opinion above. --Klein zach 04:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and a {{trout}} for TPH, who really should know better. I was unaware that Wiki content had an expiration date - oh, wait, it doesn't - or that it was against policy for featured content to all be worked on by a single user - oh wait, it isn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - since when is 'out of date' and 'created by one person' reasons for deletion? TPH, you've been around for six years. You should know this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 17 November 2011 (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.