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: Delete any content relevant can be editorially merged in to Portal:California . — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:History of California[edit]

Portal:History of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created recently against the Pause Portals RFC using the same script that caused the uproar. No new criteria has been proposed to the community or run through an RFC so this page should not exist. Also we already have Portal:California which should cover the history. No Wikiproject has endorsed this title. The existence of a nav box does not mean we need a portal. Legacypac (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the history of California is notable and broad enough to deserve a portal. Other than the obvious ones that are far too restricted in scope and content created recently, this I think has enough potential, albeit not in the current state. @The Transhumanist: should put his/her efforts in improving portals, not brainlessly mass-creating new ones for marginal topics. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:POG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Not as problematic as most of the recently created ones, but no evidence of plans to maintain it. A better case could be made for Portal:California or Portal:History of the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable enough, large body of articles supporting it. ɱ (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The history of California is a sufficiently large topic to support a portal. This one needs some work, though -- the introduction makes it sounds as if history stops in the year 1900. Either write a dedicated intro section or use those of History of California 1900–present and History of California before 1900? The subcategories box also looks undermaintained at the moment. delete unless some more work is put into it. —Kusma (t·c) 19:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed the portal and believe it passes WP:POG. (It does need work, that is not a reason for deletion.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to Portal:California - if portals are supposed to present broad topics, why remove a whole swath of potential topics from a viable portal, decreasing the variety and breadth of its content (ie its utility to the reader), just to create a narrower sub-portal which is less useful to the reader? I suspect it's because the people making/protecting these portals care most about increasing the number of portals, not increasing their utility to the reader. At most, upmerge to the California portal, or whatever the fuck it is we do with automated portals when we want to pretend that there's something in an automated portal worth salvaging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 5 April 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.