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 Keep Portal:Kashmir. Delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Kashmir. While the majority seems to feel that the Portal has potential, the WikiProject has never been functional. Aervanath (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kashmir[edit]

A dead or probably never-alive Portal and WikiProject. All the interlinked articles have been edited only by User:Changetrl, expect few minor edits by other editors to correct wrong transclusions of templates/categories. While the portal can be salvaged by mending it well, the WikiProject surely doesn't really seem useful as there has been no collaboration by other editors on it, which happens to be the purpose of having a WikiProject in first place. These are all created in December 2014 and 7-8 months is a good period for editors to give chance to revive the project. Seems that such thing has not happened. In fact I don't even think this Project was even created by consulting multiple editors. Seems to be just one man army working here and Project is not needed for one single editor. Same case with Portal, unless people here think that it is worth salvaging and putting into some use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and archive. Deletion of the worst portals may cause some people to think there is value in the remaining portals. All of Portal space should be archived. Portals were great when Wikipedia was growing exponentially, maybe. Subsequently, they became moribund. Not as bad as https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page but still moribund. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. But sometime we will have to visit this topic of which portals should stay and which shouldn't if single editors ever started created portals just for fun. That mess would need cleaning someday. Btw, what about the 2-3 pages of WikiProject? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "There is not much collaborative work on Portal" is not the reason for deletion. We can't rule out that it will not happen in future. Currently many portals are largely inactive, we can't delete all portals. As of now there are only 3 comments on Portal talk:India in entire 2015 year. Kashmir is major part of India and it deserves portal. Portals or Wikiproject pages of nearly all states of India are inactive, there is no reason why we specifically should delete portal of one region. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 08:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The political or social status of J&K within India has nothing to do in this Wiki world. And you should stop opining on all deletions I request. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No one uses portals anyway, and this one is clearly a one-man job with no supporting behind it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the notion "no one uses portals anyway", because it is subjective and also incorrect. Check out the page views at stats.grok.se for Portal:Technology. The portal was viewed 46,328 times in August 2015. Quite the opposite of the opinion above regarding portals in general. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A valid portal that can be quite easily expanded. The portal presently provides an overview of the topic, and again, is expandable. I have performed some work to improve and update the portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:, @Human3015:, So you're all just expecting the portal to magically gain users and content overnight? I see this all the time with dormant portals: everyone argues "Just keep it for now, it'll be expanded and get more traffic later", and five years later, it's still gathering cobwebs. Show me one example where "keep, it just needs work" has actually fixed a portal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Your points are right. But this portal has not been linked in Kashmir related articles yet. Creator forgot to link it in related articles in see also sections like ((Portal|Kashmir)). I think if we link this portal in related articles then we can hope for some change in situation. I am active on Kashmir related topics, half of my top edited pages are Kashmir related. Once this deletion discussion closed as "keep" then I can take responsibility to tag this portal in as many articles also I will improve this portal. --Human3015^TALK 22:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The portal should be kept as it gives a valid and decent overview of the Kashmir topic, while the dead and probably never operational WikiProject should be deleted as it has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Kebabpizza (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2015 (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.