Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming

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 delete. bibliomaniac15 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Neuro-linguistic programming[edit]

This portal is poorly maintained (not updated since May 2007), littered with red links and serves no useful purpose to the NLP related pages. It is an embarrassment to portals! The navigation box that appears on most, if not all, NLP pages, along with the NLP categories provide all the links necessary. Poltair (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree w/ Poltair (talk · contribs), no activity for over a year, not really that useful a page. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The portal is still under construction. I think it could be a useful page but requires a fair bit of work. It will help organise and serve as an entry point into the series of articles on NLP and the related topics. ----Action potential ^{t c} 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under construction"? First 6 edits from 5-6 May 2007, the next one from 16 August 2008 nominating it for MfD... I tend to interpret that as "an idea that never took off" rather than "under construction". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Peter Damian (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too narrow a scope, too vulnerable to becoming a vehicle for advocacy ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've seen what happens to extremely specific portals about controversial topics: they veer off into pure advocacy with the apparent backing of Wikipedia. Good that you caught it now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• tag as historical. Archiving bad ideas helps us, but especially future editors, to learn and to not repeat the same mistakes. The problems with the protal should be documented on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Narrow scope, unmaintained, and if someone actually starts this over eventually won't lose much work as such. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:14, 18 August 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.