Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Belarus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 07:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Belarus

As the brianchild of the Portal, I ask for the deletion of the portal. It has feel into disarray, due to my lack of attention to it, and with the fact that I am one of the only major editors when it comes to Belarusian subjects. There has been plenty of projects and portals for Eastern Europe, so for those who wish to cordinate Belarusian articles, they can go there or see me directly. Sad to see this go, but I do not think it has any use in my eyes anymore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there Belarusian special-interest sites where people might be recruited to work on the English-language Wikipedia's Belarus articles and portal? It would apparently be better to salvage the useful parts of the existing work and update it than to abandon it. If not, maybe just the Belarus category (with 25 subcategories) is a comprehensive reference enough for future editors to work from. If no volunteers are found by the close of the MfD period, I say ~~reluctant weak delete~~ per request of nominator. Barno 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep (even if not immediately rescued) per argument of not meeting any deletion criterion nor any part of WP:NOT. Barno 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a horribly bad portal, some activity on subpages. The way the portal is currently set up it requires no maintenance and deletion does not seem necessary. (note: I added the missing MfD notice to the page). Kusma (討論) 09:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it needs to be, it can be marked as inactive. It doesn't violate anything in the deletion policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hey, it is well done. Congratulations. If you can not maintain it, just let it be inactive. --Bduke 12:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maintaining portals is timeconsuming, but if needs be, it can just be left inactive. Hopefully someone will add new material sooner or later. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 13:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So with this setup that is used on the portal now is supposed to be little maintainence? Well, if that is the case, I could make the updates if I have time. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. XfD's are not for maintenance. Active or not, it doesn't violate any of the policies described in the deletion policy. Please refer to this discussion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or mark inactive/historical/whatever, no real reason to ST47Talk 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete it. Let it be inactive, its fine. When someone or you want to revive it again, go ahead. Terence Ong 11:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with it. Mark it as inactive, if you want, but don't delete it. —Nightst a llion (?) 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this wats it deleted so I think it should be deleted. I think it says in the deletion policy that if the author wants it deleted then it should be deleted. If we keep it we are vilating the deletion policy. Peace. --James, La gloria è a dio 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the criteria for speedy deletion. CSD 7 states that the article has to be Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created. - this isn't true for this portal since (1) there were multiply contributers to the page in addition to Zscout370, and (2) it wasn't mistakenly created. When making additions to non-userspace pages, the editor should understand his text is being released into public domain, and he may not remove it or request its removal unless violates certain policies. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. Users do not release their edits to the public domain unless they explictly do so. They only agree to license their edits under the GNU Free Documentation License, which is not PD. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well known topic, I would be willing to contribute to it, it might make a nice featured portal...all it needs is some TLC. :) Arjun 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep every country should be entitled to a portal. If this is kept, I'd gladly work on it.--Rudjek 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arjun's right. "Every portal needs love." :) But really, I see no harm in this portal. Some work could be done though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tohru Honda13 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as it apparently needs little maintenance now. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:27, 26 January 2007 (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.