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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Cartoon Network[edit]

Nominating myself for deletion again. Dead portal, very out of date, no activity. JJ98 (Talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the portal is supported by an active work group: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Cartoon Network work group. I recommend taking your concerns to them if you think it's out of date. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did Jj98 not re- re-make this portal only a few months ago? Why do you keep re-nominating things you have done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's not really anything on the portal which can get out of date, so the "very out of date" claim is completely untrue. As for activity, you recreated this portal at the beginning of April 2011 (as Moxy notes above), so your comments that the portal is "dead" and has no activity are not founded in reality, either. Once created, many portals don't have a lot of activity unless they have some sort of current events section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more into this - I have a question JJ98 - have you had a falling out with the projects you are involed in?Moxy (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I am rebooting and revamping WP:ANIMATION, and started the Cartoon Network portal back in January had previous nomination back in March. I've added new work groups like Cartoon Network work group, and Adult Swim work group after WikiProject Cartoon Network went inactive. However Adult Swim does live live action and animation, which I am going covert Adult Swim work group into a WikiProject to cover all Adult Swim articles, and remove all Adult Swim artilces within from the Cartoon Network work group to help keep WP:ANIMATION going like WP:ANIME. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 03:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks to be in good condition. It gets over 1000 hits a month, so looks as if some people like it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jj98, I highly recommend you stop deleting and recreating the same pages over and over again, as it's getting a little out of hand. I'm not sure if you're just trying to increase your edit count or if you sincerely have a use for these pages, but whatever it is, it all needs to go in your sandbox until you feel that it has a purpose on the real Wikipedia. I don't mean to bash you here - you've contributed a lot in a relatively short amount of time - but at some point you just need to slow down and really take a look at what you're editing. I've seen a large amount of AfDs pop up this month with your name on them, and I'm starting to wonder if you'll have half the project (work group? task force?) deleted by the end of the year. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was closed as "withdrawn and keep" by JJ98. I have reopened this as I think it needs a clear consensus from this discussion, for that to happen it needs to go the whole allotted time. Woody (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woody. I don't disagree with your edit summary "reopening, stop creating and withdrawing vast numbers of XFDs". However, as JJ98 changed his position to Withdraw [1], the first reason under Wikipedia:Speedy keep is met. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think it more important here to have a strong consensus and precedent to then cite if it ever makes its way back here. We can simply say there was a full length discussion that says keep. If it is withdrawn, we don't have that strong stance to cite so I think it is better to ignore those guidelines in this case. Woody (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in good condition, no real reason to delete (certainly not dead or out of date). Bencherlite ^Talk 08:13, 20 June 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.