Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Portal:Sims

Just a block of colour! There is nothing! It's basically a few coloured boxes and redlinks. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Procedural comment I earlier declined a speedy request on this; see Portal talk:Sims for the reasons. Abstaining from this MFD as I don't know enough to say whether this portal will be viable. – iridescent 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - too soon for the MfD to happen. The portal was only started on 1st June and is still {{underconstruction}} from what I can see. I would suggest polite enquiries at WT:SIMS would be the first approach before placing the portal for MfD. Of course, if nothing has changed after a month and you've made best efforts to contact the project without success, feel free to relist. Gazimoff WriteRead 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - I agree that this portal just recently became active. Give the editor(s) some time to create the page. --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, recently created, and should be allowed a reasonable chance to grow. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of how new the portal is, I don't think a portal should be created about this subject for a long while. According to the statistics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sims, there are 47 total articles for this topic. There is not a single article above B-class. According to the guidelines for portals, a portal should be build around topics with significant status (good, A-class, or featured articles). I say delete this and focus on building the articles up first. When 3, 4, 5 articles reach good or featured status, then build a portal. Metros (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you ever consider that the portal will help draw more attention to the articles so they can be improved? :) — MaggotSyn 02:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gazimoff. Re-nominate it if and when it is not improved or expanded soon. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy keep. June first is when this was created so this MfD is way too soon. 47 articles and a project is enough to justify a portal. Give this time to grow. — MaggotSyn 02:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'd like to add that this should also be placed back into the under construction category once this is closed. — MaggotSyn 02:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not going to !vote as I made it, but can I say that I am still building it - I currently have GCSE exams, and so am very busy to do anything on wiki. Thanks, BG7even 09:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It may take a while to create a portal, this one has just been recently created. I agree that the Sim articles need to be improved as a priority, and I'd say that a portal is a luxury. But in the same time, it's not that difficult to make a decent portal even with a few good articles (with random portal components and so on). Of course, if it's in the same state in a few months from here, it should be brought back here. Cenarium (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Portal:The Sims- better portal. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with the other sims portal. ElectricalVandilize Me 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - No need for this portal, since its already redundant to Portal:The Sims. The other being well constructed in comparison to this. Rudget (Help?) 09:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Portal:the Sims, no content worth salvaging and pointless to have two portals for the same topic. nancy (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect (switched). Didn't realize there was another portal. — MaggotSyn 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note - this portal was created first. The other also has formatting issues. Also, "The Sims" has a small scope (only The Sims 1, 2, 3 and the expansion packs, whereas the other can have anything Simsish. - BG7even 14:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the first portal was created April 6th, and you saw fit to request a non-controversial deletion without obtaining consensus from the Sims WikiProject. Frankly, I'm seeing a lot of ownership issues here, and I think you really ought to work with the Sims WikiProject rather than unilaterally. Redirect, and if you think the original portal which you managed to have speedied should widen its scope, then obtain consensus for that. It's already nearly complete and this portal is nothing but an empty husk. xenocidic (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)