Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zoroastrianism

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 debate was No consensus to delete Most of the delete votes are anterior to the changes and {{historical}} tags are generally used for project pages. Cenarium ^Talk 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Zoroastrianism[edit]

A portal that is not being maintaned and which lacks most relevant components __meco (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page history shows this portal was last seriously edited in 2006 and marked as "needing attention" in 2007. If nobody cares to fix it, it's not worth keeping. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless if nobody's going to maintain it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zoroastrianism was at one point a major world religion, and it probably has influenced other monotheistic religions as well. Ideally Zoroastrianism should have a portal, however, in this case it is not deserving of a portal. This is an inactive portal, which in itself is not a reason to delete a portal, however, this hasn't been active for years, and it lacks much information. All these things added together merit a deletion.--SJP (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dead portal, not needed anymore. macy^talk 18:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but unofficially neutral. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as {{historical}}. — Athaenara ✉ 06:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as a historical archive per Athaenara. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag historical/archive yes this is missing lots of components, but the topic is certainly worthy of a portal and if anyone ever wants to write one this will be a good start. Hut 8.5 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We don't tag portals as "historical", to my knowledge. Portal still lacks a lot, but I've added some material and will try to complete the rest. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So John, are you saying you are willing to take on the responsibility of upkeeping this portal?--SJP (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If required. However, the question strikes me as being irrelevant, as, as I have already stated, I have yet to see any portal which has been tagged as "historical", and there is sufficient content to keep it. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2008 (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.