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. Participants may be interested to note that I had significant concerns about this portal at FPOC, but the strong consensus below is that these and other concerns do not justify deleting the portal. Renaming and / or expanding or contracting the focus of the portal are best decided elsewhere. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Conservatism[edit]

Clearly, this portal too US-biased based on the comments from failed FPOC candidate. Also note that WikiProject Conservatism is up for deletion. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree this portal has serious problems (why is the Cold War there, for instance?) and possibly a rename to Portal:American Conservatism would be a good idea, but these concerns ought to be addressed by editing rather than deletion. I should note that it doesn't look like WikiProject Conservatism is going to be deleted at this point. Hut 8.5 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me get this straight. You actually want to delete a Featured Portal Candidate? Which, with some improvement, could realistically become a Featured Portal? Are aware that the portal has a TO-DO list requesting that the FPOC recommendations be implemented and that the portal be globalized? Here's the TO-DO in case you missed it. Note all of the items requesting "non-US" content:

*Add more articles such as Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke

Featured content reviews are designed to improve content, not provide rationales for deletion. I hope we do not start a precedent where we delete content because it fails a Featured review. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Current selected article isn't in the scope of WikiProject Conservatism (and isn't in any way connected with conservatism), please remove it.--В и к и T 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general, portals are supposed to funnel readers to various articles, hopefully ones they intended to find. This portal serves a very modest flow of users, some 20 to 60 hits per day, and I imagine that the users are getting fair service from the portal. While the portal is not at all featured portal material, its glaring problems with Amero-centrism are not so serious that deletion is the only way out. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonable portal with great potential, no outstanding reasons for deletion. - Haymaker (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rationale doesn't justify deletion. Deficiencies have already been identified and easily fixed with editing. Someone should post a note at WPConservatism to fix their portal! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, no sense spurring a horse who's already running. Veriss (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, if the bias is real, it's nothing that can't be fixed among the members on the talk page. Deletion solves nothing. This seems to be a WP:POINT nomination. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - Yet another attempt to delete a WP:Conservatism-related page despite there being no policy issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Portal:American conservatism Portal titles should not misrepresent. At the moment the overwhelming US content is used to implicitly define other types of conservatism. That's misleading. --Klein zach 01:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, there. The portal is very much hooked on Reagan, as if he were the be-all and end-all of conservatism. Your suggested title would be a better fit for the current material. Otherwise, the portal would have to get input from a wide swath of interested parties to match its name. I don't see that happening. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well lookie here: someone just added a mess of non-American DYKs. I reckon that as of now the majority of DYKs are not even American!!! Aint that the darndest thing. Bink, this just isn't shaping up to be your week, mate. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Globalizing the DYKs took about 1.5 hrs. So it will take 3 more hrs max to make the whole thing international. Just think what would happen if everyone would stop crying and whining about "American bias" and just roll up their sleeves and do some editing...

Keep Any objections seem to have been met, and lacking a reason for deletion, the default, as always, is Keep. Collect (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see any justifiable reason why this portal would be deleted? Peter (talk) 21:01, 13 October 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.