Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions

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: archive. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 23:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions

Outdated how-to guide that only confuses editors. Displays wrong information and has no update prevision. Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete pending a better argument to keep or delete. Anything that tries to simplify the creation of portals is a bad idea. Portals are hard work. While the use of tools to build them is useful, tools that make them seem easy are fool's tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worth keeping here, since the instructions are insanely outdated. With the current consensus toward taking a chainsaw to portal space, I doubt there will be much need to create any more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. An important record of the scant foundation of portals. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and then archive to avoid the risk of anyone thinking there is any current validity to it. However, past edits elsewhere may be made inexplicable by deletion of the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We shouldn't risk anyone thinking there is any current validity to it. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth saving here - material is wrong and unsanctioned. Don't need even more musings on portals to cloud thw waters. Britishfinance (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. There is almost nothing on the page; rather than blanking, I would suggest putting a large and garish notice on the top of the page stating that the information is out of date, kept only for historical purposes, and should not be used by anyone. bd2412 T 05:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or archive. I much prefer deletion, because it avoids the risk of someone missing or ignoring the "historical" notice, and acting on the advice below.

I the consensus is to tag it as historical, then please it first, and note that outdated content is available in the page history. --15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not arquive - @SmokeyJoe and BD2412: Can you specify what is important to archive? I don't see much use in that.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is commonly the practice on Wikipedia to archive failed proposals. Otherwise, how are future editors to know what proposals have failed? bd2412 T 18:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Wikipedia history. We don’t delete our history. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2019 (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.