Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian classical music

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, as no reason by policy, and perfection is not required. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Indian classical music

Uncategorized portal, linked from only 3 articles. No discussion on talk page. This has been around for over a year and no one's ever bothered to categorize it or say anything on the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Once again, no policy-based reason for deletion given. (1) Since when did lack of categories mean we delete anything? To save you adding them yourself, I've added a couple of categories. (2) And a red-linked talk page? Oh the shame; let's delete everything without a talk page because that's a sound policy-based reason for discussion, isn't it? Oh wait, no it isn't. (3) And it's only linked from three articles? Six, actually, but, yes, it needs to be more widely linked. Deletion is hardly going to achieve that. I've alerted the most recent editor of the portal - who was working hard on it a couple of weeks ago, in fact, and perhaps he/she can think of ways to get this portal more widely linked in mainspace / article talk space. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I've significantly improved the portal recently (prior to this nomination for deletion). It contributes to the overall Wikipedia project in a functional, useful manner. Why would an entire page be deleted for lack of having categories on the page? Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the portal is linked from absolutely nowhere and isn't being maintained by ANYone? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean apart from Northamerica1000, who did some maintenance on it it only a fortnight before you nommed it for deletion? Reyk _YO! 03:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is someone undertaking to complete and update this? I am minded to say 'delete' per nom, but the best outcome would be to make the portal worthy of its subject. --Klein zach 01:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- no reason for deletion has been presented. Reyk _YO! 03:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, per the very sound and reasoned rationale as provided by Bencherlite (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for all the reasons already mentioned. No valid reasons for deletion have been provided. Also, I added links to the portal from several more articles and several related categories. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Only small percent of relevant articles link to the portal. Some linked recently, but surely lot, lot more to follow. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:BIAS? Although I'm not altogether familiar with WP portals, I fail to see why one focusing on the wonderful art music traditions of India should be axed on the basis of a mere technicality. --MistyMorn (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ten Pound Hammer should be commended for nominating this group of portals. Abandoned, stale, badly designed and incomplete portals are a major problem. If a nomination results in a portal being reworked, then it has achieved something. If not, we should consider what condition of material is acceptable for a published page. We need to apply some joined-up thinking here. If deletion is acceptable in certain circumstances for a part or the whole of an article, then it should be acceptable for a portal. The idea that portals are off-Mfd limits is unrealistic. Editors who think that particular portals should be kept are perfectly entitled to their opinions, which indeed I respect, however I see no justification for speedy keeping. --Klein zach 23:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have to remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.— Moxy (talk) 15:53, 18 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.