Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity

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 Redirect to Portal:Sexuality. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Nudity

Portal contents have not been significantly updated since its creation in 2006. the content is minimal, is essentially abandoned. the associated Wikipedia:WikiProject Nudity is inactive, and has not had significant progress for a while. all the portal links to this portal can easily be replaced by Portal:Sexuality or if its nonsexual nudity (not really a concept, as all nudity is an expression of a persons attitude towards sexuality, if its not sexual per se), a portal for society topics or other portals, would do fine. The web resources subpage has been MFD, and kept, but w/o this portal, it should go, or be added to the nudity article if not already. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the sexuality portal. I don't see a reason why we should trash the current contents, and should people become interested in reactivating this portal, they'll probably have an easier time if we preserve the history. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hadnt considered that. I can see some value in maintaining the structure of the portal. but, the content as it stands is both minimal AND not of high quality. 2 articles selected over the years, no archive. 1 biography, of a low notability person. 5 pictures, none of great quality. other items are trivial portal contents and easy to recreate. the external links is a very bad idea, and the nudity news history is nearly completely unsourced (i dont like in the news, but they at least have to link to wikinews). the template of nudity topics is used separately and would stay. a dedicated portal creator, who knows how to code it, could create the structure in a few minutes, and quickly populate it much better. I say either delete the whole thing (with the nudity portal links redirecting to sexuality, as suggested, and which was what i meant to say but forgot) or leave the contents blank if the structure is worth saving.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2014 (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.