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 Given that many of the delete rationales were made before the improvements to turn this into a functioning portal, I think it's fair to close this as keep on the basis that it now acts like a proper portal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Baltimore[edit]

Portal:Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An unattributed copy of Baltimore largely as it read in 2013 except for a minor update in 2017 [1]. This is not a Portal except it is in Portal namespace, it's just an outdated version of Baltimore hanging around not being maintained. Legacypac (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - updated based on changes to the page that render my rationale invalid. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a portal......as per the norm for any page not compliant with his purpose £ recommend deletion.--Moxy (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paul you even dishonestly posted at WikiProject:Portals that this was a portal under deletion discussion. It's not a Portal. Accusing ofher editors of FORUMSHOPPING is somethig serious and you need to stop casting aspirations Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Baltimore. And please cease the personal attacks. WP:NPA.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly delete WP:FAKEARTICLES on userpages. Just because the title says User:Example does not mean its a user-page anymore than sticking Portal in front of something makes it a Portal. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We also regularly edit and improve poorly written articles and media rather than delete them. If we're going to have portals, it's probably fair to have a portal for Baltimore. But first we need to decide if we are going to continue to have portals. Then we can decide if ones like this should be kept or deleted. It's a simple and logical process. I don't think this is a "fake article" just a poorly prepared portal that can be fixed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A portal can be built at this title any time in the future. No worries.    — The Transhumanist   12:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well apparently it is a portal now but still this is extremely POINTY .... This honestly deserves deletion just purely on colours alone (I'm sure Paul will now change them but still it should be zapped anyway). –Davey2010Talk 00:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are colors that very much represent Baltimore...CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad - So I've gone from offending a few editors (at ANI) to now offending a whole state .... What a great day this is turning out to be! , My sincerest apologies - Had I known they were the colours I wouldn't of said anything... Just assumed they were randomly picked, Again sorry about that!, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010 Not the whole state, just us Baltimorians ;) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was already a portal yet [2]. We should revert that mess - it looks like vandalism and/or WP:POINTy edits. Yuck. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly believe that, you should follow the steps at Wikipedia:Vandalism and report me. And if you do not honestly believe that, you should not accuse me of it. These are good faith edits and you know it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well your actions speak for themselves. Reverting as what you did is not an improvement at all.Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you proposed deletion rather than sought improvement of the portal, why would you care if changes by others were not seen as improvements? We have an example just below of another editor who did consider it as having been improved. —ADavidB 04:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the edited version to which Bnng refers, before the edits were reverted. —ADavidB 04:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The canvasing by the editor that refused to acknowledge this was not a portal and other portal fans should not be rewarded. Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking to 'punish' editors by undoing their improvements suggests it's an IJDLI argument. If editors are believed to have violated WP rules, please take it up with administrators. —ADavidB 02:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said why I undid his ugly edit and it was not punishment. Legacypac (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, change "punish" to "withhold 'reward' to", by whatever means was intended above. Again, "ugly" suggests an IJDLI argument. —ADavidB 03:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a portal now, so it should be evaluated on that basis regardless of any alleged canvassing. Lepricavark (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2018 (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.


More