Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Virginia Woolf
- 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: Delete. — xaosflux Talk 15:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Virginia Woolf
We have a very well developed article at
]- It has a long history that should not be deleted. Solve the problem by redirect to Virginia Woolf. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For now, Neutral because this portal precedes the spree of portal creation, and I see no specific reason why this one needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)- Comment: Not all of the photos have captions, but most have captions. It could use some work, but that has never been a valid reason to !delete.--Auric talk 11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Years of lack of maintenance for a portal is a reason to delete. Scope problem is another. I think very few individuals need portals. We are trying to establish some baseline for inclusion criteria. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- While on one hand in general I don't want to discourage others contributing to the project in ways I don't personally value, on the other, my leaning is that portals are 13 years moribund. A few are so big that they continue on historic momentum, but the majority are moribund, and compete for attention from mainspace, negatively. The main portal, Wikipedia:Community portal, is not even in Portal space. That's my long standing position. None of it implies that deletion is the answer. Archiving is the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Years of lack of maintenance for a portal is a reason to delete. Scope problem is another. I think very few individuals need portals. We are trying to establish some baseline for inclusion criteria. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The proponents have made their point that single-person portals are only in order in extraordinary cases. I can't define extraordinary cases, but, like Judge Stewart, this is not one of them. Woolf was a great writer, but there are many great writers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (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.