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: Userfy . Consensus is that this particular portal should not be kept at this time. As Abyssal has requested userfication, I believe that is a better alternative to deletion. It will be moved to User:Abyssal/Portal: Belemnoids. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Belemnoids[edit]

Portal:Belemnoids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old dusty unfinished portal consisting of an old unattributed copy of a mainspace page and a bunch of links to non-existent pages. Prime example of why most portals should he eliminated. Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Postpone until completion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. No prejudice toward re-nomination once that is complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The fate of this would-be portal should not be tied to the fate of portals in general. This portal doesn't even tell me what belemnoids were, except for a picture, let alone provide any useful access to information. This portal can be moved to a bit bucket regardless of other portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless primary author works to greatly improve it. That user is currently active and has been notified, so presumably can comment here and start to work on the portal again, if desired. Barring that, though, I see this as an experiment that didn't really go anywhere. - dcljr (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) [see changed !vote below][reply]
• Archive don’t Delete . Portals are project history, and post archiving of portals, something more automated is to replace it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you actually look at the portal? Not sure anything there is worth archiving. - dcljr (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked. Content, formatting, edit history. User:Abyssal deserves more respect than you imply. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I said delete unless the original author showed further interest in it. I don't see what's disrespectful about that. - dcljr (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  “not worth archiving” is synonymous with “of no value” and “should have never been done in the first place”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No necessarily. There are different forms of archiving. Redirection, deletion, tagging as archived, moving to some obscure location where no one will look at again. In this case the only content is a content form of another topic. If it's not going to be a Portal the Portal formatting is of no more use. So really just deleting it is the best form of archiving. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Portal formatting I expect is something that will be kept. The idea is to use automated methods to fill the sections, copying article lede sections, for example. The idea of what deserves a portal, what deserves what level of content navigation, needs preserving. It doesn’t matter how archived, as long as it is not deleted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the introduction is on Paleontology not Belemnoids - and that is the only content outside a picture. This almost inspires me to write up Portal:Elephants with the lead from Biology. Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agee. I have been in this for years. I am wholly unimpressed by the content forking. In trying not to so blindly content fork, soemtimes the portal content goes in another direction trying to be different. Wholly inappropriate, in conflict with mainspace, detracting from what it links to, distracting to the few editors and readers who happen to go there. I advocate archiving by redirecting without getting angsty about the current portal content. It needs editorial action. Not deletion. MfD is not for editorial governance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: Can this be moved to project or userspace rather than deleted? Abyssal (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move out of portal space, per Abyssal's request. (Changed from Delete !vote above.) Sure, it can go into your userspace, as you are the original creator of the portal. - dcljr (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend moving to project space, and oppose userfication, as a general method of deprecating portals. The concept is good, the implementation needs a revamp, multiple editors are interested. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - There is an ongoing overlapping discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals which should close first to avoid skirting consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close - nomination is out of order - the portal has already been nominated for deletion (along with all other portals) in a current deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, which proposes the following: "Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace." Therefore, this portal is up for deletion twice, in two locations on Wikipedia at the same time. There are two deletion notices on the portal page! It is a form of double jeopardy. Please close this MfD, and let the folks at the RfC determine what to do about portals. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   08:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important: This also applies to:
    • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray
    • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Muhammad
    • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica
    • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quidditch
• Delete, long abandoned incomplete draft. —Kusma (t·c) 19:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)±[reply]
• Move out of portal space, for reasons stated above. Icarosaurvus (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move into the creator's userspace if s/he wishes to retain it. Otherwise, delete as incomplete, abandoned and too small a topic to be a useful portal. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this discussion and the others like it seem to me to be violating the policy WP:FORUMSHOP, which states "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." This discussion should be closed per policy and if necessary re-opened at a later date when Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals has concluded. (I have repeated this comment on the other similar discussions)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all, its valid in that is NOT asking for opinion on ALL portals, but asking for discussion on a SINGLE (incomplete and abandoned) portal. This is perfectly acceptable in any situation.--Kevmin § 16:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They are slightly different questions, but the end result is "should we delete this portal" or "should we delete this portal and all the others" -- that, to me, makes it essentially the same issue from the point of view of what should be done with this portal. Suppose both remain open and consensus here is to keep this portal but in the larger topic the consenss is to delete all portals. Now you have consensus going against consensus, and that's one of the conflicts that WP:FORUMSHOP is seeking to avoid.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They are only the same if you actively ignore that this is only about a single defunct and never finished portal. To insist its otherwise is very close to making a straw-man argument. This is the exact forum for this type of discussion, that of a single, very poor, never finished portal on a very narrow topic (and having the WRONG description text). A discussion that should happen irregardless of whatever else is happening in portal-land.--Kevmin § 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unfinished and abandoned by the creator, never expanded upon, and much to narrow a topic.--Kevmin § 16:57, 26 April 2018 (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.