Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

April 11, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paducah, Kentucky

Portal:Rotorcraft[edit]

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

Automated error portal. 2/4 of the selected articles are lists. One just says "This is a list of rotorcraft, including helicopters, autogyros, rotor kites and convertiplanes. Read more..." and another "This is a list of active Russian military aircraft." with a link. But embedded in that featured article box is another box headed "Armed Forces of the Russian Federation"?? that contains other fun tidbits auto harvested because they mention a helicopter. Example: " that one of the dogs belonging to Imran Khan, the Pakistani prime minister, accompanies him on his daily helicopter ride to the office and in official meetings at his home?" (none of the items listed involve the Russian military). Then there are news tidbits like "9 March 2019 – A Japanese high-speed boat collides with a "marine creature" while carrying 121 passengers; 87 passengers are injured and 5 airlifted by helicopter to the hospital. (CNN)".

A mess thoughtlessly created and obviously not checked after the template code was dropped in a new page. Legacypac (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Beyoncé[edit]

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

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Single performer bio portal same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brandy Norwood. Article does a better job. This was restarted in September as an automated portal evidently because it was not being maintained. No reason to believe the restarter will maintain this page (and yes automated portals need maintaining). Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly passes WP:POG. An assumption it won't be maintained in the future isn't a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 05:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure it is - it was not maintained before and the editors that restarted it have shown they can"t and will not maintain portals they create. So who? Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Check the history - it has had plenty of edits. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep – Meets WP:POG. Expandable from the pre-automated version, and I already expanded it a bit with some of this content, including the re-addition of the Recognized content and Related portals sections. More can be done. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - A single-person portal is too narrow a focus. This one does have a category, but that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This performer is not a broad enough subject to meet the requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Per the relisting comment requesting more detailed input, which is most appreciated, below is the category tree and Recognized content for Beyoncé (in collapsed form), which includes featured articles and lists and a plethora of good articles. Per content available about the subject, and the significant amount of high-quality content, the subject passes WP:POG to qualify for a portal.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussion[edit]

• Discussion from 2008 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears is on point here. It lead to an uncontroversial deletion of a bigger name portal Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Madonna (entertainer) and the concerns were the same as expressed in the current round of discussions. Lack of scope, poor maintenance etc. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Here's my additional discussion: This portal was previously deleted, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé Knowles. She has had a 29-year career if you count all the way back (which is a BIG stretch); compare that to Frank Sinatra and it is not close. The article is not even a Level-4 vital article (that's the top 10,000). I'm not saying the topic won't be broad enough some day, but it is not broad enough now. Plus there is no one who has signed up to do the necessary maintenance on this Portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• What necessary maintenance is required for this particular portal? If the portal is retained, perhaps a notice could be placed at WikiProject Beyoncé stating any concerns and to request a maintainer. Regarding concerns about the automated status of the portal, it could easily be reverted to this version, which would solve the issue quite easily. In fact, if it is retained, I would prefer for it to be reverted to this version and then expanded from this starting point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I just had to edit Portal:Beyoncé/Related portals to remove 1 deleted portal and 1 Portal that was listed twice. Those types of changes are required ALL THE TIME (even in your supposedly better version). UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, those that opine for deletion of portals should take steps such as this to ensure that red links aren't interspersed everywhere afterward. I do so all the time, such as after an AfD discussion has resulted in deletion. It seems that those that !vote a lot to delete may not bother to actually do so, with a potential premise that since deletion can correlate with not caring about the content, there is then therefore no need to spend more time on the content. In this manner, such inaction can then used to qualify for the deletion of other content; a vicious circle of sorts. A portal listed twice, well, sometimes minor errors occur, but I don't see that as a qualifier for deletion of an entire portal. That would be like deleting an entire article just because it was WP:OVERLINKed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. You geniuses on the WP:WikiProject Portals team ENSURED these portals would be impossible to maintain, as all the links to portals are via templates and so CAN'T be removed using Twinkle or any other related automated tools (like we do after an AfD). And none of you stopped to think "wow, maybe we should see if the community is cool with everything we are doing" before the thousands of portals were created (or, for that matter, just read the guideline). Don't blame the deletion nominators for the mess YOU created in the first place. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• A big problem with automatically including content from elsewhere into a portal it was not designed for is that weird stuff gets in and/or breaks the portal. Non-vandal good edits at the source can mess up the portal in unexpected ways. You can watchlist the portal all you want but you have to visit it regularly to check for automatic errors that don't show up as watchlist edits. No ome on Team Portalspam thought this through. They were not even checking creations as the errors from day one show. If we wanted to read bot creations there are lots of really low traffic sites out there to visit. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tashkent[edit]

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

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This portal does nothing but repeat the text from the article lead and allow you to scroll through photos already in the article Tashkent. The only other pages it links to are the 12 districts of the city, also linked from the article. This adds nothing to the reader's experience. Just a distraction on the way to the article. Why would we direct a reader from the article on the city to this page? Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Though there's quite a lot of content in the categories for Tashkent, on spot checks little of it seems above stub or a short start. No prejudice to recreating once appropriate content has been developed in English, as capital cities with a long history are suitable portal topics. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I'm generally ok with capital city portals but this one is only half built with no effort being put into it. Adds nothing to the article. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• 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. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

When copypaste voting at one a minute or more you barely have time to find and open the MfD, paste and save. This vote does nothing to address the nomination reasons. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I use multiple tabs. My vote stands. I do not appreciate you trying to eliminate my votes as disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This meets neither the breadth-of-topic nor the quality-of-Wikipedia coverage requirements of the WP:POG guideline. !voters are encouraged to focus on guideline-based reasonings. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, and under construction too long, so clearly not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Gazamp (talk · contribs) fixed up the portal on April 3, adding in a number of articles which clearly show the breadth of the topic and fixed a number of the photos. If there was a problem before, there's much less of a problem now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the city is over 2 million people and a national capital which are reasons it qualifies for a portal. Now that the page has been fixed it is not useless compared to most portals. I'm ok with a withdrawal if others will recind their delete votes. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

April 10, 2019[edit]

People Portals A-C[edit]

Individual people do not, as a class, qualify for the depth and scope required in WP:POG as clarified by the community in the following MFDs. We have found even big stars like Portal:Brandy Norwood lack the scope required for a Portal topic. Portals are generally problematic as they are either not maintained old versions of the article or navbox based automatic error generating junk.

Excluded are very influential historical figures like Portal:Jesus and any US President like Portal:Barack Obama because they deserve to be considered separately. The community does not need to spend time debating portals on individuals anymore as the results above clearly show consensus has been reached.

Discussion[edit]

• Delete all I created this nomination. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • But, even Björk? ♥♥♥ In all seriousness, WikiProject Björk has 350+ pages. I don't see harm in keeping, and I'm sure there are others here worth keeping as well. I think nominating so many together was a mistake, but we'll see what happens. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Be happy I did not do A-Z! How about this, if two users want to pull a name from the list I'll strike it and we can have a seperate discussion. That will balance between this becoming a trainwreck and having to hold a whole bunch more MfDs page by page that will go like the last 44. That work for you? Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – I disagree with the generalized notion that biographical portals should automatically qualify for deletion, and feel that some should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, particularly the portals that were manually created, such as Portal:Björk. It's also a slippery slope to declare consensus so quickly, particularly when many MfD discussions have been based upon automated portals. Some users may be for the deletion of automated portals as a default, but not necessarily for the deletion of all biographical portals, sans a few for high-profile individuals, as a default. I'm not nearly as concerned about the portals that were created as fully-automated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment After this nomination was created two single person portal discussions have closed as keep, but they were not without strong support to delete: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aretha Franklin and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele. Hopefully this nomination will help clarify something we can encode into WP:POG. The selection criteria here is every single person page sorted in Category:All portals not already nominated for deletion (the sorting seems to follow last name sometimes and first name other times). This is not about whose music someone likes but about what is an appropriate portal scope. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bandai Namco Holdings[edit]

Portal:Bandai Namco Holdings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single company portal like many others deleted as too narrow, but created before the mass creation spree. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

1. Keep: They're a notable video game developer and a large multi-national company, not too sure how it wouldn't be a suitable topic for a portal. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The basic idea is no individual company gets a portal. So Portal:Video games is a broad topic but a developer of video games is not. Portals get very few readers anyway so it is no big loss. Articles are where it's at. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question - Does User:Namcokid47 plan to maintain the portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Star Goodkid[edit]

Draft:Star Goodkid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This guy just released his first album this month which makes this WP:TOOSOON and a WP:PROMO case. Two other now blocked accts linked to this title and I've CSDed it before. [1]. Delete and SALT Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and salt same kind of promotional verbiage that got the article deleted last time. [2] Speedy if the creator is a sock. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also one of the userpages was deleted. Sourcing is all social media because they are not notable yet. Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bundang-gu[edit]

Portal:Bundang-gu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is just a district of a city that is part of Seoul Capital Area. Falls in the scope of Portal:Seoul and if not, the other portal should be expanded until it is so awesome it needs to be split. Legacypac (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Angra do Heroísmo[edit]

Portal:Angra do Heroísmo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

35,000 person town or network of villages. Limited scope for a portal. Fine for an article. This is out in the middle of the Atlantic btw Legacypac (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Natchez, Mississippi[edit]

Portal:Natchez, Mississippi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a broad scope for a portal per WP:POG. "City" with a population under 16,000. Created by badly converting Template:Natchez, Mississippi so it only has three featured articles, including the main one. Hut 8.5 22:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Created because there was a template to copy. Creating useless portals is fun. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Nuuk[edit]

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

Fails WP:POG. This is the capital of Greenland, however the population is only 18,000 (a third of Greenland's total), so it isn't a very broad topic. The articles in scope are about places, buildings and organisations located there, most of these are start- or stub-class and portals are supposed to have a good supply of higher quality articles. We do also have Portal:Greenland. Hut 8.5 21:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete for all the reasons against thr capital of Iceland. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps[edit]

Portal:Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Another potentially too-contentious for Portal topic, created by a Portal-only editor. Does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete topic needs an article with refs, balance, and all the controls and editors watching it. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Major League Baseball[edit]

Portal:Major League Baseball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Almost completely redundant to Portal:Baseball; all of its articles, images, and other content appear there as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I previously nominated a division of MLB. Many of the teams have portals too leaving little real estate for an MBL portal between the broader Baseball portal and the team portals. This is mass created junk too. Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP - I also completely understand how this is considered too broad of a topic when it is ever expanding, teams, Miscellaneous, history, etc. Doesn't seem correct for this to be nominated for deletion. You have to reconsider it.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 23:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan)[edit]

Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This is a single television show which does not meet WP:POG. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I tried to nominate this myself and got a twinkle error. Thanks for fixing the nomination up. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Question - Is this portal being maintained? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The {{Portal maintenance status}} template shows no maintainers, and of course there is no related WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

Portal:Madonna (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single biography portal which I understand does not meet WP:POG. This is five years without receiving real addition of content. Single biography portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree.

287 pageviews (30 days) for Portal:Madonna (entertainer) compared to 310,640 pageviews (30 days) for Madonna (entertainer) also demonstrates that readers do not see much sense in exploring a narrow topic portal like single biography portal. Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per these 42 recent precedents

In this specific case the page was previously deleted during a purge of single person portals Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Madonna (entertainer) Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Even in 2008, it was agreed that portals should be broad in scope. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Madonna (entertainer). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per multiple discussions. This could be a G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Legacypac - No. There are 42 individual-person portals listed. Two of those are drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes fixed. Thanks. Looking at too many lines of text obviously. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The prior 2008 discussion is very enlightening. "Narrow scope" and "all need cleanup" sounds like nothing has changed in portal space. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears They were deleting some big names too. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:One Life to Live[edit]

Portal:One Life to Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:POG. There is nothing here that cannot be found in the subject's article, so it serves no use. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete big fat Lua error for me today. Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Christmas trees[edit]

Portal:Christmas trees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Topic that fails WP:POG. The usual automated spam. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - A portal plague portal created during the wave of reckless portal creation. Usual objections to narrow focus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Warhammer[edit]

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

Narrow and confused topic. Not meets WP:POG Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the scope is clearly confused. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This heritage portal appears to have been abandoned and then re-adopted as a portal plague portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Panicatthediscofan1/sandbox[edit]

User:Panicatthediscofan1/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTWEBHOST, G3 declined SITH (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy blank as WP:G3 will not work. It's a sandbox of someone with 6 edits and not worth discussing because we can't completely remove a sandbox. If they do stupid stuff elsewhere go for a block. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Users are allowed to engage in test edits in their own userspace sandboxes. WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply—this isn't being used for hosting anything. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - I'm with Reaper. It's a user's sandbox that doesn't seem to have anything that would qualify for WP:NOTWEBHOST.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a sandbox. No need to blank. It shouldn't be necessary to wonder why there is granular silicon dioxide in a sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles[edit]

Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Downtown Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:South Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (all now unused subpages, but not the main page that I restored to a redirect) these can go G8 so no need to discuss

Four more LA neighbourhood level portals. We already have Portal:Greater Los Angeles which is the scope that the WikiProject California correctly decided was appropriate for the Los Angeles portal (see history link on the LA portal above). TTH overrode that group decision to create a portal for the "city proper". Then he made numerous portals for individual neighborhoods within the city proper (the first four here, a batch BHG nominated, and several more I placed in a previous nomination). These are not supported by WikiProject Califonia, who wanted correctly to broaden the scope of the portal to cover the whole metro area. Focusing on one broad scope portal is far better then a bunch of micro portals. The LA subpages are housekeeping since they were abandoned unused in 2010 and were not used in TTH's reboot. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I am unhappily arguing against deletion of these portals because the history of this nomination is tainted by User:Legacypac by (1) altering User:BrownHairedGirl's original nomination against her careful definition; (2) User:Legacypac apparently trying to suppress a caution from an admin about disruptive editing. We don't need these portals, but we even less need Legacypac's scorched-earth campaign against the portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I was super clear there when and how I added these 4 to the larger nomination. Clearly these are not needed any more than the ones BHG nominated. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac, I am sad to see that you seem to have completely ignored the explanation I wrote about adding those pages to the other XFD was disruptive. And even sadder to see that you deleted it without archiving it[3], leaving an edit summary which makes it very clear that you still don't get the problem: go target the real problem makers that created this mess and throw up roadblocks to cleanup.

I agree entirely that a huge cleanup is needed. But that cleanup is impeded by recklessly mangling MfD nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural keep. This is an apples-and-oranges situation. 4 extant portals jumbled in with a housekeeping issue makes for a fractured discussion. Except that it's not entirely a housekeeping issue, because @Legacypac did not disclose they they unilaterally redirected Portal:Los Angeles. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Archive_5#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego was mostly 2 editors, with 3 others making occasional contribs, and it was 9 years ago. So that needs separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Now BHG don't lie. Yes I restored the long standing redirect because one portal is clearly an overlap with the other. Contrary to your hostile statement about lack of disclosure, I specifically said "but not the main page that I restored to a redirect" and also pointed to the history of Portal LA link where you can clearly see my editorial action. I'm not seeking to delete the redirect and if it makes you feel better I can tag all the old Subpages G8 which they obviously are. Now can we keep this discussion on topic and less of a whining about me? Taking a discussion off the rails by complaining I've made a mess of another discussion is ironic. Robert started the WP:X3 discussion that was supervoted down, so he already expressed that these should be deleted without debating them individually. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:A Flock of Seagulls[edit]

Portal:A Flock of Seagulls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a single-band portal, created in September 2018 by TTH. Flagged as having a portal status of having minor issues needing maintenance, and has been so flagged since before March. (With thousands of newly created portals, you can't expect them to be maintenance-free yet, can you?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-29T01:20:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:A Flock of Seagulls. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete we have developed significant precedent that individual bands lack scope for.a portal. The articles always are their so gs and albums and sometimes members, which are just spinoffs of the band's page. The band's article including nav box are much superior. I'd like to see a group nom of bands because there are so many at Category:All portals For example this batch was just deleted Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cheap TrickLegacypac (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Isle of Man TT[edit]

Portal:Isle of Man TT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete An annual sports competition does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement stated in the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2012-11-10T17:24:23Z by User:Agljones: Portal:Isle of Man TT. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete cleanup portal space time. Fails WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - A heritage portal with too narrow a focus. Does the originator have a comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete (not weak!) this editor has a long history of using WP to promote Isle of Man-centric articles, 98% notionally being motorcycle racing; although this is largely hidden, it is an example of using WP as a personal portal.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Marvel Triple Action[edit]

Draft:Marvel Triple Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previously deleted as a copyvio, clearly not working on it in the draftspace (before they delete it.) and is using it as a webhost, something we're not. SITH (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral - Doesn't need deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete useless content fork. This topic has to be in mainspace already. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Glorified navbox microportals for universities[edit]

Article list <6 pages, including stubs

Portal:University of Portsmouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of the Western Cape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Craiova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of South Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article list 6–10 pages, including stubs

Portal:Jagiellonian University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Salford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Regina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Karachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Kragujevac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Transylvania University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article list 11–15 pages, including stubs

Portal:University of Bergen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Brighton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Calcutta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Essex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Freiburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Greifswald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Hertfordshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Johannesburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Rostock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Sussex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Tasmania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:University of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article list 16–20 pages, including stubs

Portal:Baldwin Wallace University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 16 non-stub articles, plus 1 stub or duplicate

Portal:University of Bonn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 10 non-stub articles, plus 10 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Gothenburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 12 non-stub articles, plus 5 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Guelph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 18 non-stub articles, plus 8 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Mannheim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 20 non-stub articles, plus zero stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Montenegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 18 non-stub articles, plus 2 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Surrey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 16 non-stub articles, plus 1 stub or duplicate

Portal:University of Westminster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 10 non-stub articles, plus 5 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 15 non-stub articles, plus 5 stubs or duplicates

Article list 21–25 pages, including stubs

Portal:University of Bath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 14 directly-relevant non-stub articles, plus five on University Associations, plus 2 stubs

Portal:University of Glamorgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 16 non-stub articles, plus 8 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Heidelberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 14 non-stub articles, plus 7 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Southampton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 17 non-stub articles, plus 7 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Rochester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 14 non-stub articles, plus 2 stubs or duplicates and ~6 duplicates

Portal:University of Toledo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 16 non-stub articles, plus 7 stubs or duplicates

Portal:University of Warwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — 19 non-stub articles, plus 5 stubs or duplicates

Each of these portals:

• has less than 20 unique non-stub articles within its scope, which is below even the risibly low minimum of 20 advocated by the portal fans at WP:PORTG. Some of them are so disgracefully short of the minimum that their creation was utterly reckless
• was created on 7 September 2018 by the portalspammer @The Transhumanist in an apprent autmoated or semi-automated process consisting solely of entering {{subst:quick portal}}, and saving.
• draws its article list solely from a single navbox. This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:
  • the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time.
  • the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:

• both the topic navbox and any related navboxes
• A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

It is clear that little or no attention was paid to the drive-by-creation or maintenance of these microportals. All of these portals were subjects of WP:AWB or bot edits after creation, but less than five of these portals have non-automated edits, all trivial. The two-and-a-half hours which it has taken me to assess these microportals is far more time than their creator spent in making spamming them.

Note that this nomination is only about navigation between Wikipedia articles. It is not in any way a judgement on the significance or quality of the universities themselves. Many of these 41 universities have exceptional academic reputations, and the list includes three of the world's oldest universities: Greifswald, Rostock and Turin, all founded in the 15th century.

The problem here is simply that these automated spam portals are an impediment to navigation, luring readers onto pages which are of significantly less use for navigation than the head article.

It may be that in some cases a properly-curated portal could be created on some of these topics, which added significant value beyond the navbox. I have not attempted to check that, but I think it is very unlikely, because Wikipedia simply does not have extensive coverage of every single university. Portals exist to provide navigation across broad scope topics, and only in very rare cases is there enough coverage to require a portal. Narrow-topic, automated spam portals such as this are simply a waste of readers' time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: none of these appear to meet WP:POG, they were created seemingly automatically so should be up for deletion automatically. This is of course without prejudice to thoughtful recreation. SITH (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all of these. Not broad enough subject areas. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete

Pldx1 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all BHG spent too much time pulling this nom together. WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete All - As BHG says, all created on one day in mass. Deletion is being considered more deliberately than creation. It is the creation that was the attempted fait accompli. No need for portals except either that creating portals is fun or some idea that portals are needed to satisfy some ill-defined need. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Queens of the Stone Age[edit]

Portal:Queens of the Stone Age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Single band does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. SITH (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2008-08-06T13:32:40Z by User:Be Black Hole Sun: Portal:Queens of the Stone Age. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete like other bands. Need a big batch nom. For example this batch was deleted without opposition Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cheap Trick Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This portal should have been deleted in December 2008 when its originator was banned, and has apparently been orphaned all that time. Besides, we don't need single-band portals.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Soul Train[edit]

Portal:Soul Train (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Portals based on a single television series, even one as awesome as this one, to not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: good TV series, I agree. Meets WP:POG? No. SITH (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-28T23:11:27Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Soul Train. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete TV series have been shown in MfDs to not meet WP:POG and POG needs updating to clearly reflect that consensus. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Yet another recklessly created portal by a member of the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom[edit]

Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Has the same fundamental issue as the previously deleted Portal:Prostitution in Canada, Portal:Prostitution in India and Portal:Prostitution in Japan: not broad enough subject matter to meet the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: considering the consensus at the three now-deleted "Prostitution in X" portals, I think it's fair to say consensus is that "Prostitution in X" doesn't pass WP:POG. Invoke IAR. SITH (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-10-28T12:59:54Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1: That is incorrect. It is driven by sub-pages that were manually created which deliver a smaller number of selected, more relevant articles and images than the "automated" navbox driven portals. --John B123 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@John B123:. The first line of this portal says: This portal was created using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
The 3rd line of this portal says: {{Portal maintenance status |date=October 2018 |subpages=none |broken= |note= }}. In other words, this portal is so poorly maintained that no maintainer is given, while subpages=none indicates that no subpages are used (or even are to be kept). Moreover, when reading the 'images' and 'articles' --edited once for all 2018-10-28-- it becomes obvious that, the infobox of the main article being shamefully empty, some elements have been taken from this main article and put there. E.g. the 'images' contains a grand-total of 8 pictures. Whaow ! Some figures about views during the current month are given at: [[4]]. Pldx1 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1: A case of only seeing what you want to see, if you had looked further you would have seen:

Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected general articles - Selected articles transcluded from sub-page Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected general articles

Transclude files as random slideshow | Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected images Images transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected images

Random portal component|max=3|header=Did you know...|headertemplate = Box-header colour|subpage=DYK DYK transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/DYK

{{/Recognised content}} Recognised content transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Recognised content

As you have obviously taken such an interest in the page history, I'm surprised you din't notice that the sub-pages were added after the "Portal maintenance status" note. I'm also somewhat puzzled by your stating the portal doesn't use subpages but then quote the creation date of the sub-pages --John B123 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and we don't need any more Prostitution in Somewhere portals. BTW Portal:Prostitution is a sorry navbox based portal too. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And totally irrelevant to this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - This portal does not have the same fundamental issues as Portal:Prostitution in Canada, Portal:Prostitution in India and Portal:Prostitution in Japan, which were created as part of 1,300 portals created by a single user and navbox driven. This portal uses subpages to select relevant featured articles, images dyk etc, not random articles from a navbox. It far exceeds the minimum requirements of WP:POG. The subject is broad enough to have a considerable number of related articles above start class, including 10 FA and GA articles. Because other portals regarding prostitution have been deleted for poor quality etc, that is not a precedent to delete all portals on this subject. This nomination clearly meets the criteria for speedy keep per WP:EARLY: "Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question" --John B123 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I assure you, I read the Portal: before nominating it for deletion, and if you read my nomination you will note it was based solely on the grounds of WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-area requirement; one which the three deleted portals, whatever their other faults, did not meet either. UnitedStatesian (talk)
• Keep. I think the topic is just about wide enough for a portal, and this portal shows how to use the randomiser elements of the new-style portals together with hand-curated (subpage based) instead of navbox based selections. —Kusma (t·c) 20:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Did You Know that this portal says 15,000 people are believed to have been buried at Cross Bones, an unconsecrated graveyard for prostitutes in Southwark, south London while the article Cross Bones says By 1769 [Cross Bones] was being used as a cemetery for the poor of St. Saviour's parish. Up to 15,000 people are believed to have been buried there. Not really the same assertions. Did You Know the source of the first one ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral - This portal appears to be actively maintained. The narrow topic is why I am not arguing for Keep. Other than that, this is a portal in good condition.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hans-Jürgen Hübner/sandbox

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 . — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC) User:Hans-Jürgen Hübner/sandbox[edit] User:Hans-Jürgen Hübner/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host your preferred version of deleted content. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut Diez). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Delete, possibly speedily per WP:U5. SITH (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Delete tagged U5 and could be a G11 Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Portal:Aruba[edit]

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

Yes this is a country portal, but ... after being abandoned from 2012 -2018 with only minimal content, the autoportal team turned it into a very poor version of the article Aruba. The selected article is fixed, just names the currency. There are some bios like some singer who lives in the US but was born in Aruba, and none of the bios are really relevent to someone interested in the county. Then there is the urging to join the stillborn Wikiproject and a second link to the Wikiproject. All the images can be viewed at Aruba without refreshing. Useless links to Wikimedia. At least they left off the part about asking all your Aruba questions at the ref desk. This adds zero value to the reader experience. With the only two editors who have worked on this in many years being TTH (who does not maintain his creations) and Dreamy Jazz who has retired, there simply is no maintenance plan at all. No one maintained or expanded this even though it was an embarrassingly sorry page for years before so why would we think anyone would make this into something useful in the future? TNT and redlink it in case someone wants to build something useful someday. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2011-02-22T14:15:27Z by User:Straatmeester: Portal:Aruba. Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a country portal, meets WP:POG. Can be easily expanded.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe but WP:TNT and WP:REDLINK applies. Very hard to expand this format of portal and there was minimal interest in the portal prior to the new crew getting ahold of it. Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete It is not clear that every country meets WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-matter requirement; I note that there are only 36 countires listed at WP:VA. On top of that, this one adds nothing to the project, and obviously also fails WP:POG's multiple maintainers requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - As Legacypac says, this heritage portal, whose originator has been banned, has been dumbed down by the portal platoon. We don't have an urgent need for 200 portals for 200 countries that would warrant leaving unmaintained portals gathering dust. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Aruba is a rock star awesome place. I suspect the people are all at the beach instead of worrying about a Wikipedia portal. Maybe I should be looking for cheap tickets there right now. Their huge passport stamp says "One Happy Island" and oh that it is. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Aruba work group[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Aruba work group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Totally dead "workgroup" The talkpage stats explain [5] and the activity on the mainpage [6] proves the point. Let's delete it to not give the false impression there is anything to this WikiProject. Nothing worth archiving and nothing historical about this. This Wikiproject is what is listed as supporting Portal:Aruba. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Project has two listed members, one of whom is inactive and one of whom is banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:American Horror Story[edit]

Portal:American Horror Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single TV series. Based on a Navbox which is pretty much a season and episode guide. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-01-31T14:41:40Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:American Horror Story. Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as always. Fails WP:POG. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Yet another narrow-focus single-show portal created by another member of the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alien (franchise)[edit]

Portal:Alien (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Old portal "upgraded" to automated. This is a stripped down version of the article with out all three nav boxes or lists of films in the article text. Two featured images, one of which is the logo already in the intro. A disservice to the readers. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2008-02-22T22:12:43Z by User:IllaZilla: Portal:Alien (franchise). Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as a cut-down version of a heritage portal, unless the originator or someone else agrees to maintain it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alfred Nobel

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 . — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Alfred Nobel[edit] Portal:Alfred Nobel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This navbox portal gives you the opportunity to see the same photo of Mr Nobel three times on the same page. Not a TTH but built with the same tools. Mainly this features a bunch of lists of winners of the prizes named after Nobel - content which is not about him at all. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-06T18:46:26Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Alfred Nobel. Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Speedy delete per G7 - This is definitely too narrow, and again I don't have the time to try and expand it and no-one else seems interested. Deleting to focus on more worthy portals first therefore makes sense. Gazamp (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Portal:Albums[edit]

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

What is the scope here? Two photos - one of MK's Thriller and the other of an 8 track cassette. The category tree links to all kinds of albums by various artists, but this is a silly way to explore the gazzilion pages we have about music. This is pointless navbox based junk. Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-22T06:52:43Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Albums. Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - This one could be expanded to a reasonable scope, but was still created via the pushbutton technique. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Condoms[edit]

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

And just when you thought you saw it all in terms of portals... The scope here is a handful of condom brands and a few additional articles. Navbox generated portal with no value. Meszzy² (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete 19 pages including everything Legacypac (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T06:42:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Condoms. Pldx1 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Narrow topic. Not meets WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: small topic. Pun intended. SITH (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Now now, it's not the size but how you use it. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Like using a small script to create thousands of portals from navboxes. Meszzy² (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Having been rebuked once about sexual humor on MFD, I will only say that this is another unneeded portal by TTH during the early part of the wave of reckless portal creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors[edit]

Portal:Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created 28 December 2018 by TTH during wave of reckless portal creation. Flagged as 'Portals with errors in need of immediate attention' since then. Subjects are mythological northern Chinese ruler-deities; no apparent reason why this subject (or others) were chosen for portalization. Obviously not receiving needed attention or maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete subject has a navbox so needs a portal. We also need a speedy for this junk. Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-28T08:50:34Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors. Pldx1 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as always. Automated junk that fails WP:POG. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Company Portal Batch 2[edit]

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

Portal:Bandai Namco Holdings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:BT Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Budd Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:The CW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Daybreak Game Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Portal:Yahoo! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Warner Bros. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Virgin Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Scope limited to a single company and subsidiaries which is too narrow for WP:POG These were all created with the one page auto error generating script by various users. We have deleted many individual company portals already as seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Airways. These come from Category:Company portals. An earlier batch here still being voted on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Company Portals Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I think we've determined by now from past MFDs that individual companies aren't appropriate for a portal. It also looks like a lot of these are mass created navbox portals which we also seem to be generating a consensus against. Meszzy² (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

All are nav box ones, I excluded pages created before the spree. Legacypac (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right - no idea why I said "most" instead of "all". Meszzy² (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And right there I don't know why I wrote "most" instead of "a lot" which was really what I said. Words are hard apparently. :) Meszzy² (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-14T18:10:06Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Panasonic

- An automated portal, created 2019-03-05T23:46:08Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:BT Group

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:52:52Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Budd Company

- An automated portal, created 2019-01-02T03:57:22Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:The CW

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T21:45:57Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Daybreak Game Company

- An automated portal, created 2019-02-04T12:37:54Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Nestlé

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-07T05:29:36Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Twitter

- An automated portal, created 2019-02-06T04:15:06Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Yahoo!

- An automated portal, created 2019-01-02T03:54:38Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Warner Bros.

- An automated portal, created 2019-01-05T18:55:41Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Virgin Group

Pldx1 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2017-07-16T23:44:21Z by User:Namcokid47: Portal:Bandai Namco Holdings. Pldx1 (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep those that have sufficient content to support a portal, specifically: Portal:BT Group, Portal:Yahoo!, Portal:Virgin Group, Portal:Warner Bros., Portal:Panasonic and Portal:Nestlé - these are more like major conglomerates with many subsidiaries and diverse areas than single companies. Delete the others as they don't seem to have sufficient breadth of content available. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Portal:Virgin Group, Portal:Warner Bros., Portal:BT Group and Portal:Yahoo!. All are perfectly fine portals for large multi-national corporations which have a wide-enough scope to sustain a portal. Gazamp (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all None of these has the breadth-of-subject-matter required by the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• also per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The WB and [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nick Jr.]] which are like Portal:The CW Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Portal:The CW does have rather the same sort of feel as Portal:Nick Jr. did, but the portals I identified as worthy of being kept are noticeably more complete. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Portal:Bandai Namco Holdings wasn't created in the spree. It was created by User:Namcokid47 on 16 July 2017. Possible conflict of interest, but does not seem to fit in the bundle. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. It was created earlier. It's a toy company so I don't take the creator name as a COI. I'll nominate this one separately. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Not !voting at this time because of bundle mismatch. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lake Constance[edit]

Portal:Lake Constance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently created portal with about 50 pages in Category:Lake_Constance and subcats. However this includes some boats that used the lake, one paragraph pages on streams, one and two line fish articles, and other loosely related content that has been categorized. Just insufficient scope for WP:POG. Our article does a more focused job of exploring this topic. This is reflected in the featured articles that include Hoy_(Lake_Constance), Vogelinsel_(Lake_Constance) and other insignificant islands pulled indiscriminately from the navbox. Not a TTH portal but birthed from his design. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - another mass created navbox portal with insufficient scope. Meszzy² (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Another portal created by a member of the portal platoon toward the end of the wave of reckless portal creation. This portal is flagged as in need of attention due to errors. No particular reason why this lake out of hundreds of large lakes needs a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-01-23T17:49:51Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Lake Constance. Pldx1 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lake Van Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Reykjavík[edit]

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

Newly created portal a minute that overlaps Portal:Iceland The capital region contains 65.5% of the population of the whole country so removing Portal:Reykjavík from the scope of Portal:Iceland makes no sense. Great city, stupid expensive to visit, but does not need a portal. See also my rational at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pristina Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Though I find a lot of portals to be of minimal use, this one deals with a city qua city while the Iceland portal deals much more with history articles. Sufficient difference that I am inclined to keep this one. This is nowhere near the level of permutation and combination that "countryA-countryB relations" had years ago. Collect (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep- It's a capital and largest city in Iceland, but of course the topic is narrow but need improvement and it's good for WP:POG -- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

you created this. Please explain why this is not massive overlap with Portal:Iceland? Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The portal as it stands currently has basically no content on it and seems to be mass generated. I would agree that a capital or large city having its own portal is fine if it's properly designed and maintained, however, this portal is neither. If someone down the line decides they want to construct a portal for the city they can, but as of right now in its current state this is just more navbox portal spam with no value, and should be deleted. Meszzy² (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need 200 portals for all 200 national capitals, even if they are specially designed, and this one is not, and was simply one of the less absurd subjects in an absurd wave of reckless portal creation by the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

To quote BHG on a similar case "Just another glorified navbox. Its article list is based solely on the navbox Template:Pristina, which works with much less utility than the navbox because: the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time; and the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page. The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes both the topic navbox and any related navboxes, and of course a full article on the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede. I do not rule out the possibility that it might be possible to create a genuinely useful portal for Pristina. But this auto-generated page is not it." Legacypac (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-11-28T05:59:50Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Reykjavík. Pldx1 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This is one of the very worst microportals I have seen:

1. It is based solely on Template:Reykjavík, which redirects to Template:Districts of Reykjavik City. As such as it offers no benfit beyond the navbox, and in every respect it is significantly less useful than the navbox, because the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time; and the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.
2. The topic's main page works far better as a navigational hub
3. The theoretical scope of this portal as built only 11 articles, that being number of blue links on the navbox Template:Districts of Reykjavik City. However, of the the districts listed, one (Miðborg is a redirect to the stub article Reykjavík City Center), and 8 of the remaining 9 articles are stubs. The only non-stub district is Breiðholt.
4. Because portals don't display stubs, the "Selected general articles" list contains only one article: Breiðholt.

This is utterly useless. It wastes readers time by luring them onto a navigational page which provides no navigation.

These flaws should have been absolutely clear to @Happypillsjr when they created the portal in Sept 2018. Neither Template:Reykjavík nor Template:Districts of Reykjavik City have changed since the portal was created, so the flaws now were there at the start.

Yet instead of having the good grace to says "oops! my bad", Happypillsjr advocates keeping this portal, claiming that it is it's good for WP:POG. This is nonsense: POG requires portals to be about broad subject areas, which even Happypillsjr acknowledges that this is not. And not even the most diehard portalspammers have ever actually advocated POG should support keeping portals with only one page in the "Selected general articles" list. The fact that Happypillsjr still displays such appallingly poor judgement about the topic would be very good grounds for a topic ban from portals.

It may be that a skilled editor could amass a sufficiently broad topic list to make a viable portal for Reykjavík. However, it has a population of only 129,000, which make sit it a fairly small city by global standards, and that 129k is 37% of the total population of Iceland. Unless Wikipedia's coverage of Reykjavík and the rest of Iceland massively expands, there is nowhere near enough material to justify two portals. There are currently only 3 FA-Class Iceland articles and 23 GA-Class Iceland articles, so there is no point in chopping up that small set into microportals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been to this city which imperceptibly blends into adjoining cities in the capital region. The capital region holds 2/3rds of the population in the whole country. Many of Happy's portals have been deleted and I expect the rest will be too once we get to them. The quality/uselfulness level is on average even below those of TTH from the one's I've looked at. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete no reason why this can't be covered by Portal:Iceland. Lepricavark (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 9, 2019[edit]

Portal:A Nightmare on Elm Street[edit]

Portal:A Nightmare on Elm Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Nightmare on Elm Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a redirect to here

23:13:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Old portal automated now with some issues. The topic is unclear. The introduction is from the article on the first film, but the scope and selected articles are from A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise). Even with a corrected introduction (chosen automatically so how to fix?) this is a poor version of the francise page which puts everything into context. There are maybe 30 articles in scope if you add all the films ans charactor pages together. Also some actor(ess) pages are tagged as related to the franchise but all of them have other roles and accomplishments and should not count for scope. Legacypac (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like the portal was messed up when TTH restarted it. Shows how well the portal changes worked... Anyway - the scope does seem too small, a single tv shouldn't need a portal, a navbox can handle organizing its related articles. Meszzy² (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a heritage portal that was created by a now-inactive editor, and has a narrow scope. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment

- Courtesy ping: portal created 2009-06-16T10:31:32Z by User:Scarce: Portal:A Nightmare on Elm Street

- Redirect ------------ created 2009-07-23T21:34:06Z by --User:Scarce--: Portal:Nightmare on Elm Street

Pldx1 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete not broad enough for a portal. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles glorified navbox microportals[edit]

Article list <10 pages

Portal:Encino, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Holmby Hills, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Northridge, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Reseda, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Studio City, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Sylmar, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Tarzana, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Venice, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Westchester, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Woodland Hills, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article list 11–15 pages

Portal:Chatsworth, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:North Hollywood, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Van Nuys, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:West Hills, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Wilmington, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Each of these portals:

• is for a district of the city of Los Angeles, for which we already have Portal:Los Angeles
• has less than 16 articles within its scope, which is below even the really low minimum of 20 advocated by the portal fans at WP:PORTG
• was created within a 3-hour space around midday UTC on 1 September 2018 by the portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH) in an apparent automated or semi-automated process
• has had no subsequent manual edits, but multiple AWB edits by TTH, and once by User:Dreamy Jazz Bot to add a cleanup category,
• draws its article list solely from a single navbox. This makes each of these portals merely a full-screen version of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:

• the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time.
• the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:

• both the topic navbox and any related navboxes
• A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

It is clear that little or no editorial judgement was made in the drive-by-creation of these microportals. They are an impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

PS I have removed[7] from this nomination 6 portals which were added[8] without discussion by @Legacypac, because 4 of them did not fit the criteria set out in the nomination and two of them were already being discussed at another MFD (which was blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping). The nomination has now been restored to its original state.

Consensus-formation is severely undermined by forumshopping. The necessary basis of trust between editors is destroyed where a nomination is demonstrably untrue, and the result of Legacypac's additions here was to make the nomination statement a falsehood. I have warned[9] @Legacypac that this was highly disruptive conduct which should not be repeated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all, unpopular and useless. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete through Wilmington (note in case list is extended). Too many pointless micro-portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - By the way, there are at least 6 Wilmingtons in England, and 17 in the US, and 1 in Australia, but we are only incidentally talking about Wilmington. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per clear results at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods and for completeness I tacked on two more I bundled into another grouping of small cities in California portal spam by TTH. I've also added four that were missed in BHG's sweep. The history of Portal:Los Angeles is interesting - TTH created it in Sept 2018 on top of a redirect to Portal:Greater Los Angeles against the Wikiproject consensus to move the page. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac I have removed the pages which you added. I have not checked whether they actually meet all the criteria set out, and in any case the nomination was big enough as is. Many previous MFDs have been disrupted by your addition of multiple extra pages which radically changed the scope of the nomination, and I don't want to risk that happening here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • As noted above, I have now checked them all, and I find that none of the 6 pages should have been added. Full explanation at User talk:Legacypac#Please_stop_adding_portal_pages_to_MfD_nominations_opened_by_others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine - nominated here: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal:Bel_Air,_Los_Angeles Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this mess. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T11:25:14Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Encino, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T11:28:24Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Holmby Hills, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T11:52:49Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Northridge, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:03:01Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Reseda, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:09:50Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Studio City, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:11:00Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Sylmar, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:11:58Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Tarzana, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:24:50Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Venice, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T14:10:22Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Westchester, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:28:42Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Woodland Hills, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T10:47:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Chatsworth, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T11:50:39Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:North Hollywood, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T11:54:15Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:23:07Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Van Nuys, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:26:46Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:West Hills, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:28:09Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Wilmington, Los Angeles

Pldx1 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:E. Michael Jones[edit]

Draft:E. Michael Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tendentious resubmission of recently deleted article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. Michael Jones and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 8. The Keep !votes at the AFD, this draft, and the DRV all appear to be sockpuppetry. Need ECP in both draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Jones fails notability standards and I have yet to see any evidence that proves otherwise, including in my own searches for reliable sources. The only reason why this is still going on is because Jones and his actually notable buddy Owen Benjamin have taken issue with it on social media/Youtube encouraging these actions by socks. I think we should probably WP:SALT to make sure they don't try to sneak a new article creation using a similar name. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT. It's like the good old days when we discussed problem drafts at MFD. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt (in draft and mainspace) due to disruptive resubmissions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The Deletion Review request was closed as suckpoppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. I didn't look too closely at the draft while at DRV, just noting that it existed, but on further review it's fairly obvious the draft is purely being used for disruption. It seems mostly from various IPs, so I'm not sure ECP is necessary for the draft, but I'm not going to WP:BEANS it, in case the currently-anon editors get ideas. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Wikimedia featured content[edit]

Portal:Wikimedia featured content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

10 plus years old page pulling in a hodgepodge of random stuff like a big red image error. No one is working on this page and no one is reading it either. 21 page views in 30 days is background bot traffic not humans benefiting from this page. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - As long as we are going to have portals, this one illustrates what a portal can and cannot do and what Wikimedia is and is not doing (perhaps including not maintaining portals). We don't need this one, but we never needed it and it hasn't dragged anyone down a black hole yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly not being used or maintained. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete (or convert to a redirect to somewhere). Pages like this just add to the complexity of wp without providing any benefits. Note: there are no significant inlinks to this "portal" from elsewhere in en wp (the links are from lists, talk pages etc). DexDor ^(talk) 05:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2008-07-25T17:32:59Z by User:CBDunkerson: Portal:Wikimedia featured content. Pldx1 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - There are better ways to explore this content.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was speedily deleted for being a recreation of material deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee. This was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 19, which referred the matter to this new MfD discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I wasn't expecting that this would ever end up here, but I'm elated, naturally! I'm obviously for keep, since I'm the person who created it, and ideally I'd like to see the page live in as WP:LOBU in mainspace rather than userspace again. However, if we recreate the page, there should be no editorializing of the ban reasons - just the date of the ban, a link to the discussion/decision to ban, maybe the LTA page, and that should be it, since anything more just serves to antagonize users and isn't fair to them. Rockstonetalk to me! 16:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I argued to overturn the WP:G4 deletion based on my strict constructionist view of WP:CSD. And, frankly, I'm also surprised we ended up here. But, now that we're here, the real work begins. It would be useful if you could explain how this material conforms to WP:USERPAGE and/or advances the project's goal of building an encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing in the restored article violates WP:USERPAGE. The material is new content, not deleted content from the previous WP:LOBU. My proposed recreation of WP:LOBU would be useful for users attempting to determine whether or not particular behavior mimics that of a banned user, why a user was banned, and would serve as an "official" list of banned users.

Part of the issue is that the banned user category includes users who were never actually banned (they were blocked, and the admin used the wrong template), and in many, many cases, the ban reason is not linked (I've been slowly fixing that), meaning that users cannot know why the user was banned in the first place. I've also seen at least one case where the admin placed a block template when a ban template should have been placed instead. This resulted in User:Catcreekcitycouncil being community banned twice - once in 2012 and again in 2018. Yet, no one knew about it because there was only a block template. The only way anyone could have known would have been to search WP:AN, but that's a lot of effort and isn't easy to do.

Another issue is that the current category listing does not list user bans by year. Thus, if an admin or someone else needs to look up a particular user to determine whether or not he or she is socking, they simply can't do it effectively through the user category listing. However, with WP:LOBU back, the admin could simply go look up the more recent bans and read the discussions to determine why the user was banned, rather than going through all 18 years of bans. Also, if the admin does not remember the name of the user who was banned, he or she can more easily find it if its organized by date.

I'm not saying WP:LOBU should have a ban reason listed at all. I wouldn't necessarily mind it, but it did serve to just act as a pillory for banned users, and was too editorialized. In contrast though, simply having a centralized database of banned users more well organized than what we currently have would probably be a huge help. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - We certainly don't need an incomplete list of banned users maintained after the original list was deleted. Huh? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• There are possible valid uses for this:

(1) A study of how Wikipedia bans people, a study of the Wikipedia:Banning policy, does it work, is it abuse, does practice differ from policy or theory?

(2) Assistance for all editors in recognizing and responding to ban-evading people. Does deletion of the records on banned users enable these banned to return return undetected more easily? Is that a problem?

(3) A warning for banned users, "we are watching for you", and to others thinking of doing bad things, "we will name you, and post a internal but publicly accessible record of your crimes".

I think (1) is valid, but not for any editors to do willy nilly. Banning records includes information that is sensitive, whether to the person banned, or people they harassed. If you can find information on banned user X having been banned for harassing user Y, it will include information making it easy to find X harassing Y on other website.

(2) is also valid, but it would have to managed by people who know what they are doing. A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous thing.

(3) is highly dubious, I think Wikipedia should not do this. That would be revenge. It is contrary to WP:DENY.

For what validity there is for (1) and (2), I think any information or records should be under the absolute purview of people who know what they are doing. I think ArbCom is overkill, I think the answer is the regulars at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. I think any publicly accessible information should be restricted to subpages of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse where it should be considered under the control, including discretion to delete, by admin regulars of WP:LTA. I think this information *should not* exist for sure in anyone's userspace, and should probably not be allowed to exist generally in project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• • User:SmokeyJoe -- The issue is that LTA doesn't have every banned user, just the most egregiously annoying ones. Rockstonetalk to me! 01:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • True, and so the issue continues: Should we retain publicly accessible records on banned users who are not a continuing annoyance? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, they should be public so that they don't come back a year or two later and do the same thing again. Otherwise that's not really a ban. But whether it should be so centralized (rather than just be a category as it is now), that's another question. I actually really like the idea of having the list of banned users be a subpage within WP:LTA. This way it's not as visible as being directly on Wikipedia namespace. Maybe there should be a policy to overturn bans after 10 years of no activity though. Eventually the person just grows out of it (usually -- there's plenty of people who don't grow up) Rockstonetalk to me! 04:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Pages at Wikipedia are either for encyclopedic content or for material that supports the encyclopedia. Maintaining a list of bad people is not helpful. Satisfying people's curiosity is not helpful. Shaming people is not helpful. It would be helpful if banned users permanently left the project (or, in rare cases, mounted a successful appeal). However, many banned users believe they were right and everyone else was wrong. Many such users react badly when someone puts BANNED on their user page (1 + 2) and they create socks to get what retribution they can. Experience shows that leaving them alone often results in them leaving us alone. At any, a BANNED tag or a list of BANNED users does nothing to help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How else are we supposed to know who is banned if we don't have some way to track it? Not saying that the list of banned users is the answer, but there does have to be a way to know who was banned, and why they were banned. Rockstonetalk to me! 16:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Pristina[edit]

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

Delete Small city (even if now a national capital) is not a sufficiently broad subject area as required by the WP:POG guideline. Portal:Kosovo, to which this Portal is completely redundant, more than adequately covers this subject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the topic is broad enough to pass WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Prishtina is not some minor Kosovan town or city but the capital city of Kosovo and the topic is broad enough to pass WP:POG.Resnjari (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to Portal:Kosovo. Properly-made portals are supposed to present "Main Pages" for broad topics. The creation of sub-portals like this one is actually detrimental to that purpose, because it removes a whole swath of potential topics from the top-level viable portal, decreasing the variety and breadth of its content (ie its utility to the reader). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - - An automated portal, created 2019-03-12T09:14:01Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Pristina. Pldx1 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Pristina looked great in the winter when I visited but it is not a large significant city, having a population of only around 200,000 (about 10% of all Kosovo). Portal:Kosovo should cover this well if built properly. In some guideline drafting I was working with was the idea that a city/metro area (and preferably portals are built about metro areas) should have a population of minimum 1 million to justify a portal. When a metro area crosses 1 million there starts to be enough indepth content that it becomes harder to link it all directly from an article on the city or portal on the country. Any country could have a portal and the capital of any country over 5 million in population would qualify for a portal even if the capital otherwise failed to qualify. This would focus efforts on one good portal for places that are city state like that technically have a capital but where the capital and its hinterland are essentially the whole country. For example, Singapore, Brunei, Andorra, Monaco, Kosovo, various Pacific Island nations, Iceland etc. You can't cover Iceland in any comprehensive way without talking about Reykjavik in depth, but you could say a whole lot about Canada while just touching on Ottawa since the capital is only the 6th largest metro area in the country. Ottawa has a metro population just under 1 million. However as the seat of government of one of the world's best countries (proud Canadian here) there is unusual important content not found in most similar size non-national capital metro areas like Austin, Texas. See List of North American metropolitan areas by population for example.

Even at a million people, material is not always available to justify a portal. For example I've lived near Toluca but would have a hard time pulling a broad enough Portal together for it. There just not that much worth talking about even though more than 2 million people live there. It is an industrial city with minimal tourism. Everything worth seeing is in two blocks downtown. Boring place. I'm not saying Pristina (or any city) should not have an article, just that portals only benefit the reader over an article when about broad topic that can not be best explored from a good article. Most cities (especially smaller but even larger) don't make the cut between a portal being useful and a portal being a poor substitute for the article.

Also this is a one click wonder by a jr member of the portal spam machine. Nothing is lost by deleting it until and unless someone comes up with a hand curated portal on the city. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as the usual spam. As said, Portal:Kosovo can cover it all right. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another glorified navbox. Its article list is based solely on the navbox Template:Pristina, which works with much less utility than the navbox because: the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time; and the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes both the topic navbox and any related navboxes, and of course a full article on the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

I do not rule out the possibility that it might be possible to create a genuinely useful portal for Pristina. But this auto-generated page is not it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Reykjavík Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete both for scope reasons and because, like most portals implemented in 2019 or late 2018, it was implemented without thought. Also, concur with comments by Legacypac. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Aristotle[edit]

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

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

We do not needs a portal that duplicates a single article. IMO, WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here D.Lazard (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - An automated portal, created 2018-09-12T10:05:11Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Aristotle. Pldx1 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC) changed to comment to avoid a double !vote Pldx1 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete because no we do not. Legacypac (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this portal might be broken. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The above is not a vote, just a comment. Neutral on deletion at this time. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as single-person portal created in wave of reckless portal creation. Also nominating Portal:Plato. We certainly don't need this to be a discussion of the relative merits of the two schools of Western philosophy when both masters were wiser than the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Notifying User:D.Lazard, User:pythoncoder, User:Pldx1, User:Legacypac of addition. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Good bundle. Delete both Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete both, same rationale. D.Lazard (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete both. From the second one: Did You Know that spiders in the genus Plato have cubical egg sacs?. And now, we only have to ask the Help Desk to know better about the egg sacs of the spiders of genus Aristotl. Pldx1 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Law & Order (franchise)[edit]

Portal:Law & Order (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) created in Sept

Portal:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) created in Dec

Portal:Law & Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) a redirect

TV shows, overlapping scope created by the same user with the automated error causing script. One page gave me Lua errors. No regard for portal guidelines here on scope. If we need a portal it should be at Portal:Law & Order which is a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - the scope of these portals is much too small to justify their existance. Meszzy² (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on the franchise. The scope of the franchise includes multiple TV shows, and is sufficient to satisfy portal guidelines. However, this is another application for the same error-generating script. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete SVU. Too narrow a scope to warrant a portal, and creating in the wave of reckless portal creation using the script. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect, but this is the wrong venue for a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The redirect has not been tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No because tagging redirects for MfD causes error issues. I included it for completeness of the discussion. The francise page was created at Law and Order then moved to (franchise) by the creator leaving the first title as a redirect. If the result on the portals is delete the redirect is a housekeeping delete and having it listed here allows the admin to use their closing script on it. Legacypac (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-18T00:49:28Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Law & Order (franchise)

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-30T23:35:48Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

Pldx1 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete not nearly a broad enough scope. Lepricavark (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Grand Forks[edit]

Portal:Grand Forks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

14 page scope, no category. I thought this was about Grand Forks, British Columbia home of the best Doukhobors food around but it's about another Grand Forks. Auto created because there is a nav box Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - There are only two cities of Grand Forks, but we still don't need recklessly created portals about medium-sized cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't feel too strongly about this, but I'll register as a "Keep" !vote. I happen to have created more than 50 articles about historic sites in Grand Forks (North Dakota) (most linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota), and maybe a couple about architects and builders active there (yep, including Joseph Bell DeRemer). Some categorized by Category:Houses in Grand Forks, North Dakota or Category:National Register of Historic Places in Grand Forks, North Dakota. It's home of University of North Dakota. When I started working on those articles, I was hoping some university students might get interested in taking photos and otherwise adding to the articles, and developing more about their city. Like i wanted there to be a portal. :)

Note the nomination states "14 page scope" which appears grossly wrong for what the scope of the portal is or can be or should be. --Doncram (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You are focused on content which is perfect. You know that quality content takes attention to detail. An automated portal that took 12 seconds to make with a script and that got 12 page views in the last 30 days (including us looking at it) is not the answer to share your great city with the world. The 14 pages was based on subtopics I can see on the portal. Generally portals on cities of this size have been deleted and they generally lack the breath and depth of material to justify the topic as a portal. Hope that helps. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - While it makes sense that Doncram would like a portal on this topic, the portal right now is just another TTH navbox generation portal - which is nothing more than a fancy navbox, and of which so far it looks like the community is generating a consensus that such portals are spam and thus should be removed. Meszzy² (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, insufficient scope to meet the goal of a good portal: presenting as an alternate "Main Page" for broad topics. (On a side note, Doukhobors food sounds interesting - Russian Christian anarchist vegetarians? I might have to wander out to the BC Grand Forks sometime.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Best eaten in the kitchen of a babushka :) As a side note, these people are the less obvious reason we can't run around naked in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Holy shit, I had no idea. That's incredible. "Nudism and arson were the highly visible methods of protest used by the Sons of Freedom." These people sound amazing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought the laws of physics are sufficient reason not to run around naked in (most of) Canada. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-23T01:05:09Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Grand Forks. Pldx1 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 8, 2019[edit]

Portal:Gardens[edit]

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

Portal:Garden tools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently created auto error generating portals that is well within the scope of Portal:Gardening. Some of the DYKs on Gardens are very surprising bot pulled additions. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete both - Colliding portal creation by the portal platoon. Both were created recklessly when there already was a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-15T17:32:13Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Gardens

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-24T08:44:30Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Garden tools

Pldx1 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Portal:Gardens - 'Gardens' is a vast topic on its own (see List of garden types and Category:Types of garden) and therefore worthy of its own portal. Gazamp (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In what way is P:Gardens not redundant to P:Gardening? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cockatoos[edit]

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

Another bird family portal. 21 species. We already deleted many bird family portals over various MfDs but this one was missed. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Delete - We already debated Portal:Parrots, and cockatoos are parrots. At least the cockatoo article says so. Did the portal platoon use pseudo-random numbers to select portal topics? If we didn't need the superset, we don't need the subset. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• found Larks and Macaws. We could open an bird show. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Are Macaws parrots? We had a bigger bird show. This is what is left of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

All the portal into says is "Macaws are long-tailed, often colorful New World parrots." Ok... if I wanted random facts without depth I'd play trivial pursuit " Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Larks and Macaws, which were also created in the wave of reckless creation, and have not been included in the mass nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-12T22:14:22Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Cockatoos

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-31T02:26:34Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Larks

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-31T02:25:41Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Macaws

Pldx1 (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment like said before all Parrots and Parakeets are from one family, but they also makeup one of the bird orders. Having more then one portal on this family/order is utterly crazy.Catfurball (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ethnic groups[edit]

Portal:Ethnic groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created 21 January 2019 by user who has now been indeffed as a sockpuppet of another blocked user, toward end of wave of reckless portal creation. Subsequent involvement of TTH resulted in G5 being declined, but still work of a sockpuppet, and a user who created too many portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-01-21T09:31:17Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete the DYKs are a hodgepodge of auto selected content with no focus on the topic at hand. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Pseudo-Richard/Allegations of Jewish control of the media[edit]

User:Pseudo-Richard/Allegations of Jewish control of the media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft by user who no longer edits. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It says: 'This user page page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. ' Template error. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, with the caveat that if an active editor offers to take this over while this MFD is running, it can be moved to their space or to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Call of Duty[edit]

Portal:Call of Duty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Recreation after Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Call of Duty closed as delete. The usual problems: Lua error, etc. And not a broad enough topis to satisfy WP:POG's requirements. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete instead of handwritten abandoned junk this time it is automatic error generating junk. Also this is a single commercial product line. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-04-04T09:31:49Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. More drive-by portalspam. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An unnecessary single-product-line portal. It isn't G4 because it doesn't resemble the deleted portal. But is it G5? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Neo-Nazism[edit]

Portal:Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete As with the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamophobia, this is a controversial topic that is a very poor choice for a Portal (especially a non-maintained one) because of the inherent limitations of the Portal space w/r/t referencing/BLP protection/lack of automated vandalism rollbacking/etc. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete same as the other one. Incest is another example of a sensitive topic. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-04-04T07:31:14Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Concur with above comments that a controversial subject is a bad choice for an unmaintained portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Also a long time ago we deleted an ISIL portal on the same rational. It was attracting POV edits and only I was watching and reverting the problems. Legacypac (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Dangun[edit]

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

• Delete - Not sufficiently broad subject area, as required by WP:POG. No Category, no template, so what do you get? Redlinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - limited scope. Not every page is portal suitable. Legacypac (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - But wait two or three days. This one has been created to provide some arguments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals. I suppose that you already know that portals are hard to create in user space. Pldx1 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think they are hard to create in the User Space (or the Draft space). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to try by yourself, or look at the code of all the involved templates and modules, and compare. Pldx1 (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Who says one must use the templates and modules? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Who says you must use the templates and modules when you want to discuss about the time it takes when you use the templates and modules ? Pause and coffee, maybe. Pldx1 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - This is another portal about a historical figure who is important in a country but not known outside that country. This portal does not appear to have multiple articles and multiple images. That is, it doesn't even appear to navigate. This does illustrate that portals shouldn't be created arbitrarily, because it appears to have been created without preparation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Delete, but wait two or three days. This one has been created to provide some arguments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals. Don't try to convince me that an arbitrary created portal has been arbitrary created, I am already convinced. Pldx1 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kumkum Bhagya[edit]

Portal:Kumkum Bhagya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Television show that is not broad enough subject matter for a portal. Plus, only 12 related en-WP articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-03-19T18:20:33Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

But I have seen many television shows having portals UnitedStatesian Pallaviharsh (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC).

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Pallaviharsh Please see WP:OSE, just because one Television show has a portal, doesn't mean another show qualifies for a Portal. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another automated portal, and there is no reason to expect that it will be improved or expanded. This portal has been created by a relatively new editor, with no indication of any backup. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete no TV show is a broad enough topic for a portal. The articles can handle these much better. I'm sure someone will nominate all remaining TV show portals as a group as soon as the herd in thined a bit so we can find them all at Category:All portals. Then we will add TV shows as prohibited in WP:POG. Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:The Prisoner[edit]

Portal:The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - Even though carefully curated, this portal's subject area, a show that ran for only one season, is not sufficiently broad to meet the requirement of the WP:POG guideline. The article and template provide more than adequate navigation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with nom. We almost deleted Portal:Friends and this is no where near as big a deal as that Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - meets current WP:POG - hugely influential TV series with broad appeal. I created, curated and maintain this portal. Sections include content not covered in nav box (e.g. DYK and Quotes). Londonclanger (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain how it meets ". . .should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." Has it attracted a large number of readers? Are you the single point of failure on maintenance? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Readers: it's less than a month old...Have some patience. Where/what is 'large number of readers' defined for portals? Also "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create." so, probably yes, I am the current maintainer, but again, early days. Londonclanger (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Rather keep - Delete An automated portal, created 2019-03-11T11:25:10Z. only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC). Clearly maintained. Doesn't belongs to the current series. Future is rather dark, but we are not in the future. Pldx1 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Like Portal:Friends, this is being actively maintained, and is a heritage portal, but is a narrow-focus portal. Perhaps the advocates of portals should propose a new guideline that focuses less on a broad area and more on maintenance. However, the arguments for Keeping portals are variable, because the portal advocates simply want more portals. (I wonder whether some of the portal defenders think that deleting a portal deletes the article.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Heritage only in structure, not in lifespan: was just created last month. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Content Management[edit]

Portal:Content Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just a partial version of the head article with it's navbox. Orange tag and all. Made by a new low edit user with the same templates. Legacypac (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-28T13:08:36Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Legacypac is mistaken in saying that it was created by a new user. It was created by an old on-and-off user acting like a new user. This portal has even fewer features than the usual automated portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Brodmann area[edit]

Portal:Brodmann area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Part of the brain. The scope is 52 numbered articles about this area of the brain. Several of those are missing. This serves no purpose for any reader who should go read the actual article. Legacypac (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:47:35Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Whether we need Portal:Brain is not the issue here. We certainly don't need a portal about a way of dividing the brain into areas; that should be obvious to anyone who has the usual complement of Brodman areas. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

See Portal:Mind and brain Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Batman (TV series)[edit]

Portal:Batman (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundent to Portal:Batman Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:19:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - THAT Batman TV series. No need for a portal. Originally all of these portals were part of some grand experiment that has never been explained. See Wikipedia is not a laboratory. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Portal:Batman. *throws batarang* *throws batarang* *throws batarang* *hits button* First try. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AFI Life Achievement Award[edit]

Portal:AFI Life Achievement Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:ARIA Award for Best Female Artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Awards with zero category. No subtopics. No other articles in scope. All the winners of the awards are obviously notable for accomplishments distinct from the award. This is just a repeat of the articles with the same name but with less detail. All mass creations. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T22:19:20Z, only worth of an automated deletion. P ldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) details given below, per request. Pldx1 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Obviously creating portals was fun. Obviously the datestamp applies to the first portal. This illustrates that the creation was reckless. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been reviewing Category:All portals so found a couple with the exact same issue. Legacypac (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete -

Portal:AFI Life Achievement Award - An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T22:19:20Z, only worth of an automated deletion.

Portal:ARIA Award for Best Female Artist - An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T22:23:24Z, only worth of an automated deletion.

Portal:Bobbie Rosenfeld Award - An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:32:44Z, only worth of an automated deletion.

Pldx1 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Company Portals[edit]

Portal:Advanced Micro Devices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Amazon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (the company, not the river) and

Portal:Amazon (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a redirect)

Portal:Adobe Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and

Portal:Adobe Flash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:AFL-CIO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) company like

Portal:Alphabet Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Portal:AT&T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Portal:Berkshire Hathaway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Children in Need (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Portal:Land Rover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Disney Princess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Fox Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Portal:Lockheed Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Single company or organization portals (or their products) generally built completely off the automated error template. Insufficent scope and unlikely to attract editor interest per WP:POG. Portal:Companies and industry specific portals cover these businesses. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-11-17T18:14:44Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC) corrected by request. Pldx1 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The above seems to be an automated vote in error. At least, I find it unlikely that all of the portals were created at 1814 GMT on 17 November 2018. We know that it takes a fraction of a minute to create a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes a stray vote as the bundle was being put together. This is tedious work checking thousands of pages to find ones that can be handled together logically to save holding even more MFDs. I'll invite User:Pldx1 to revote once this bundle is done. I'm up to M now. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all through Portal:Mattel except for Portal:Alphabet Inc., which does not appear to have been created using the "automated error template", even if it was later recast on that template. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Not !voting on Portal:Alphabet Inc.. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Alphabet is the odd one out. The origional page was created and abandoned in 2015. It was moved to this title [10] in 2018 and after a lot of mucking around it was "upgraded" (a term I use loosely) to a single page design [11]. There is nothing left of the old line portal work and not even the page name remains. They turned that into a DAB at Portal:Alphabet. It's just like the other single page creations except they appropriated a page someone else started and abandoned. Would have been less work for the same effect to make Portal:Alphabet Inc. from scratch and turn the original one into the DAB instead of making it into a redirect and then DABing it. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon Portal:Alphabet Inc. should never have been created because Portal:Google already existed. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• On point for this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Airways closed as deleted after a well attended MFD. Legacypac (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all as useless. CoolSkittle (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2015-08-12T01:15:24Z by User:StudiesWorld: Portal:Alphabet Inc.. Pldx1 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-11-17T18:14:44Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Advanced Micro Devices

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-07T05:02:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Amazon

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-07T05:07:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Amazon (company)

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T23:31:46Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Adobe Inc.

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-18T08:20:31Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Adobe Flash

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-05T09:12:41Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:AFL-CIO

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:03:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Audi

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-05T12:36:56Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:AT&T

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T06:24:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:BlackBerry

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-23T05:23:37Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Berkshire Hathaway

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-09T07:08:12Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Children in Need

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T01:07:13Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:CERN

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T06:21:01Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:CNN

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-23T12:00:00Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Land Rover

- An automated portal, created 2018-11-29T02:38:14Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Disney Princess

- An automated portal, created 2018-12-31T00:01:35Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Fox Corporation

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T10:33:22Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Lamborghini

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-26T01:38:33Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Lockheed Martin

- An automated portal, created 2018-11-29T18:58:05Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Mattel

Pldx1 (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Portal:BlackBerry. I put in work to clean up the automated template and fix issues. Is there a problem with it that I didn't catch? --JECE (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The idea is, and I expect we will write it into WP:POG soon based on closed MfDs, is that individual companies and product brandlines are not a broad topic suitable for a portal. If we allow any we open the floodgates to a lot of referenceless commercial content that lacks the balance we create in actual articles. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In general terms, you may be right. However, Portal:BlackBerry isn't just about the company. The introduction is taken from a different Wikipedia article, BlackBerry. In fact, the portal wasn't about the company at all until I took the initiative to broaden the topic. If you think that Portal:BlackBerry has "referenceless commercial content that lacks the balance we create in actual articles", please explain, because I don't see it. Also, if that's the real reason behind these deletion requests, you may need to rethink why you included other broad portals like the AFL-CIO one which have no commercial content.. --JECE (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The general idea is individual companies, brands, product lines, bands, most all people, organizations and similar are better handled in articles. I see little difference between AFL-CIO and Mattel as both are about individual organizations not broad concepts to explore. Note the nom statement calls out "products" which Blackberry is. Legacypac (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Portal:BlackBerry is almost identical to Portal:Android (operating system) and Portal:Apple Inc., neither of which are nominated for deletion. Could you please explain why this specific portal is a problem? There are no redlinks. Content is organized well. It's a broad topic about a company, several operating sytems, many hardware lines and also software products. Or am I missing something? --JECE (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This nomination is not comprehensive. I did not get a chance to finish it before the discussion started. There are a lot of pages at All portals to sort through, so I ended up with a representitive sample that can be used as precent on a future nomination. Legacypac (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, you're trying to mass-delete a bunch of pages. However, I'm specifically objecting to deleting Portal:BlackBerry. I don't know how you expect to set a precedent if you only speak in general terms and refuse to address specific pages.--JECE (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Dear User:JECE. At the top of the Portal:BlackBerry page, there is a {{Portal maintenance status}}. You should document it. Pldx1 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Pldx1! I edited the template. Were you suggesting that I do something more? Also, I noticed that User:UnitedStatesian just made some useful edits and fixes. User:UnitedStatesian, can I add you as a second maintainer? --JECE (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no: once the current cleanup is done, I hope to leave the Portal: namespace far behind. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for the ping! I think that Alphabet would ideally be kept if it could be well maintained, but I am not in a place to maintain it at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs)

Portal:Alphabet Inc. should never have been created because Portal:Google already existed. 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cross reference the next batch at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Company Portal Batch 2 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Miley Cyrus[edit]

Portal:Miley Cyrus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single performer portal like many we have deleted already. Manual style with all the selected content (featured photos, articles, albums, DYK) at least 8 years old. The intro is transluded from the mainspace article which does a much better job exploring Miley's career then this outdated artifact of a portal. Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2012-09-25T23:43:58Z by User:Lopezjaylo98. Pldx1 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - This is another single-performer portal. Unlike most of them, it was created before the recent wave of reckless portal creation by the portal platoon, but isn't being maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Government of Russia[edit]

Portal:Government of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another portal created at the end of the wave of reckless portal creation, and has a Lua error at line 170, no images found. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete bad article selection too. "The following is the list of official public holidays recognized by the Government of Russia." and Religion in Russia which is not a government thing. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-02-05T12:04:38Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Portal:Russia. We already have a Russia portal. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Erwin Rommel[edit]

Portal:Erwin Rommel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Fails the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. Lua error and redlink, as are common in auto-created, non-curated portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete no single person portals. No automatic error creating portals Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-04-01T16:32:39Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need portals that display an error. That indicates that they were created without proper care. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BBC Radio[edit]

Portal:BBC Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Template-based Portal that adds nothing beyond what is in Portal:BBC, and fails WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per several similar cases I could dig up. We have abandoned sorry looking Portal:Radio which featured 2/3 selected articles about BBC Radio. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-18T09:03:29Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Too narrow, and was created as part of a wave of reckless creation of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Naresh Dadhich (political scientist)[edit]

Draft:Naresh Dadhich (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More than ten years on... for what purpose is this Draft page being retained? Some COI issues also. MPS1992 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this was draftified in Jan 2019 but should have been deleted. It is an autobio and fails WP:PROF Legacypac (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Deleting is not urgent now that this autobiography has been properly draftified, and could wait for six months. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Under WP:BIAS, I would be reluctant to support deleting the page, but my guess is that even with a lot of work, the page wouldn't survive WP:PROF. This description (quote by Freitag) of the humanities faculties in 2009 during the middle of ND (political scientist)'s reign as vice-chancellor of Rajasthan University (2006-2013) doesn't suggest that the humanities faculties there were notably active research centres under his leadership... Boud (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Government of Japan[edit]

Portal:Government of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Government of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created by now-blocked sockpuppet. No maintenance except by portal creator and by TTH. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Does it make any sense to redirect these to Portal:Japan/Portal:Ukraine? (Digression: There were a couple hundred portals created by that sockpuppet. TTH one-click-created most of them from that user's creation logs about a day after User:Bbb23 and I G5'd most of them. We only left these two and a handful of others alone because they had been edited. Otherwise, you'd have seen a whole lot more of this pattern at MFD before now.) —Cryptic 03:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete recreating sockpuppet creations and urging others to do the same in newsletters is not cool. The edits add no functionality or use. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-01-29T13:00:24Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to country portals per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bangkok[edit]

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

Single-city portal. Created during wave of reckless portal creation. Not associated with a category. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete big enough important city for a handcrafted portal. This is just a poor copy of the nav box on the article. Delete without prejudice to a WikiProject supported handcrafted portal with a maintenance plan. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-16T04:41:41Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, Bangkok deserves a good portal, not a jumbled mess. —Kusma (t·c) 12:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely broad enough topic for a portal. This actually looks really good by the standards of the automated portals I've seen recently. Deletion is not cleanup. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Content more than adequately covered in Portal:Thailand, to which this portal is completely redundant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Transit System Portals[edit]

Skytrain is single system with three lines. To get to 20 pages you have to count all the stations, bridges and tunnels. It's an automated creation. Adds no value to the articleThe rest of these are bundled for exactly the same reasons. Unless you count the stations they are just portals about a single organization (a transit authority in this bundle). Also per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chongqing Rail Transit were we deleted one similar portal Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC) (epdated nom statement to be more clear) Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I fail to see any use in the SkyTrain (Vancouver) portal that isn't covered already by existing categories and navboxes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac:, please stop adding portals to this discussion. It's highly improper—people come here, given their opinion on the portals listed, and then you add entries and make it look like those who have already commented are providing their opinion on the whole batch. Any portal beyond SkyTrain one needs a new discussion and for the record, my comments only pertain to the SkyTrain portal. I have no knowledge of the appropriateness of the ones you subsequently added. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a catch 22. People want bundled noms because we are dealing with the same issues over and over yet it takes time to find parts of the bundles because portal space os so disorganized. Anyway I hope you can comment on the wisdom of having portals for mass transit in some cities vs others or that you will support dealing with these as a class of portals. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete All. We don't need portals for local train systems. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-12-20T02:52:58Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Haskell (programming language)[edit]

Portal:Haskell (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Java (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Python (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Narrow topic area: a particular programming language. The selected content is general mathematics and programming articles (like natural deduction, partial function, higher-order logic), which has nothing specifically to do with Haskell. Leviv ich 07:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: the Java and Python portals have been added to the original nomination per the question below. Please see my comment below. Leviv ich 17:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Question: There are other programming language portals: Category:Computing portals. Are they endangered as well? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I see Java and Python portals in the category and have added them here, with a note below. Leviv ich 17:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Please Keep. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC) : Haskell is a difficult language to learn in part because

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nom's update: Per the question above, I added the Java and Python portals to this nomination. Any comments above are before the bundling. The arguments are common to all programming language portals: they are not broad enough to justify a portal under POG. For example, Python has only one picture (of the creator), and the Java portal similarly doesn't have useful pictures, except for the one mandlebrot sequence animation, there just aren't useful java pictures. (One picture is of Java's mascot, kind of PROMO.) Also, these portals should not be used to create a reference guide or a tutorial because WP:NOTHOWTO. I do appreciate the work that went into gathering the links relevant to Haskell but those belong in the article. A portal on Haskell (or any programming language) is not justified. Note we already have Portal:Software and Portal:Computer science (and maybe the former should be merged with the latter). Leviv ich 17:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all the extensive keep argument makes a great case why the article needs work, not the portal. Portals are generally short overviews amd these topics are evidently not well suited to the portal approch when the keep argument is as long as the portal. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  This argument is a catch-22; it is inconsistent to criticize the many portals which are up for deletion on account of reason A, and yet argue for the deletion of yet other portals on account of not reason A. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Merge all to Portal:Programming languages which is an appropriate scope for a portal and would allow the retention the scope of the concepts, etc. The individual content would not be vague, there would just be articles, etc. at the current depth selected from a wider pool. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all These pages have no content. Energy should be spent on improving the articles, not finding a way to extract pieces from elsewhere into a fan page. Naturally someone might like to add suitable links to Portal:Programming languages but there is no content worth merging. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  It is a type error to consider a Portal as an article; they do not share namespaces; if we were to consider portals as doorways to other types then a portal's brevity (as links) allows us to compress its message length, in order to express some 'higher content' for us. So the 'selected articles' need only be details which might serve the reader in their search for what matters to them alone. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: Haskell, Java and Python are widely different ecosystems, each with their own specificity. These should not be treated as fanpages. I think it's worth it to have places to collect a curated list of topics about each of those ecosystems. Merging them all under a general "Programming Languages" portal wouldn't cut it, IMHO. klɛz (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Each of these topics would be a good featured topic within Portal:Programming languages Legacypac (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, should Portal:Programming languages be organized into subsection that cover stuff specific to particular programming languages? Subpages? I'm still new here, I'm not sure how this would work. In other words: is there a way we can organize the main programmin languages portal to still be a useful place for a curated list of articles regarding a particular ecosystem? People looking for information about Java-related topics may not care about thunks, as much as Haskell programmer won't probably care about the JVM. klɛz (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I fail to see the point of having a single huge generic portal, which is itself brand new, and we are already discussing cramming everything into it. These languages are large topics and have large software ecosystems attached to them, that are entirely different from each other and have a single focus. The logical action would be to keep these portals, have more of them and link them to Portal:Programming languages in a hierarchy and expand on them. As regards their content, they may be new but over time they will be populated correctly. It is a real shame that portal's were not really pushed, as far as a know, if that is correct? They seem to provide a lower level of abstraction than articles and hence should be easier to find by the reader and navigate to an appropriate article that is within that subject. Reading the spec at WP:PORTAL, they are "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas. Taking the topic path, they are absolutely ideal for these three languages. Lets have more for C/C++ and C#. scope_creep^Talk 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep All of these programming language portals, per the detailed and thorough view of Scope creep above. Makes perfect sense. Also not particularly convinced by some of the generalized "I don't like it" notions for deletion herein in this discussion. I am also impressed with the rationales of Ancheta Wis in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep All largely per the comment made by Scope creep above. Further, given the portals section of this page, there exist portals for additional languages than those mentioned here, like C and .NET (which both contain notably more content than the Haskell, Java, and Python portals in their current state). These portals should be expanded, not all deleted. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete the Haskell portal that was originally nominated. The fact that such a long justification is made for keeping the portal is evidence that the topic is too complex, too detailed, too specific to be appropriate for a portal. We are not arguing about deleting the article, only about the portal. The other programming languages should not have been added to this nomination, because they will complicate the close. I may express a view on them within the next four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  The selected articles show the breadth of the topic, as intended, as shown in the portal on the topic. The nominator's justification that the portal be deleted as having "having nothing to do with the selected articles", by your reasoning, should therefore be withdrawn. My reply above, lists topics such as Girard-Reynolds (which allows Haskell's code to be concise, and to lift directly into higher domains), which are part of the selected articles for this portal. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - in relation to Robert McClenon's response above, I would support separating the deletion discussions for the Haskell portal and the Java / Python portal. My "Keep All" vote above stands, however, I would be slightly more inclined to argue that Java and/or Python are more deserving of a portal than Haskell. --HunterM267 ^talk 04:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Regarding, "The other programming languages should not have been added to this nomination, because they will complicate the close" above, yes, bundled nominations can obfuscate matters, sometimes leading to a WP:TRAINWRECK situation. It also opens doors to potential ambiguity and misinterpretation by closers, who could potentially incorrectly assume that an !vote for a single page (as per the above) applies to all pages. Bundling makes it very convenient for users to declare "delete all", but makes the separate analysis of each page more complicated to then denote and discuss in discussions. It's better to nominate separately, because it halts these types of problems from occurring. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I originally just nominated the Haskell portal, and I may have misinterpreted the first "question" post above, but I thought that was a hint that I was supposed to have bundled the other portals in the same category, so then I went and did so. For my part, I'm happy to unbundle it, but I don't want to cause more of a trainwreck. My initial intent was just to nominate the Haskell portal. Apologies for the confusion. Leviv ich 04:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I wouldn't unbundle this discussion; it would just cause confusion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't unbundle any of them either. A bit late in the discussion. If there were separate discussions at the beginning, I would still vote to keep for all of them. Haskell is an important functional language. It may be at No. 43 on the Tiobe index, and ultimately not as important to the industry as Java or C# or even Go, but in the end, we are here to inform and delight the reader and must include everything that is encyclopaedic and considered important and notable. You may think it is too much, but even the smallest languages, something like Erlang that is used heavily by the telecommunications industry needs a portal. It may not have sufficient content to drive the portal, but that is something to be looked at later. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks guys, I won't unbundle. Not for nothing but "needs a portal...may not have sufficient content to drive the portal" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Leviv ich 14:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep for Portal:Python (programming language) and for Portal:Java (programming language). These portals appear to be well-constructed and doing what they're supposed to do, organizing topics related to those two programming languages. I don't express an Keep/Delete opinion on the Haskell portal, but I will note that the critique on the nom seems to be the content on the Haskell portal is inappropriate for a portal on the computer language; as distinguished from whether the portal itself ought to be there. I don't know enough about Haskell to comment on the relatedness of that content to the language, but it sounds to me that this is more a matter for cleanup than for deletion, although I could imagine that if a substantial amount of material is removed in cleanup, there might not be enough left for a usable portal. But again, I express no keep/delete position on the Haskell portal. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I see lots of discussion about the scope of these topics but I think we also need to consider the portals themselves as an entity up for deletion. What do we have here in terms of a portal and useful resource? These portals are basically severly shortened version of the main article. Its basically a bit of content from the main lead, and the topics navbox, and maybe a few pictures. The main article itself currently does all this. What are we actually saving from deletion here? If these topics have a broad enough scope to require a portal to navigate all the information in a more effective manner, how come they seem to be just fancier navboxes? The idea behind a portal is that when we have a broad enough topic that it gets hard to navigate articles effectivly, we create a portal to organize it better as a useful tool. These portals don't seem to provide any extra use beyond the main article. Meszzy² (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - It was totally absurd to use Portal:Haskell (programming language) as a flag ship for Portal:Java (programming language) and Portal:Python (programming language). The first one, as a portal, was only another TTH-garbage, while the other two are long standing ones. The only thing to do now is: keep them all and wait until the TTH-garbage cleaning period is over. Pldx1 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Evangelical Christianity[edit]

Portal:Evangelical Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 22:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination based on "Many of these portals that are being nominated look way better then Portal:Evangelical Christianity. This christian portal is so ugly, I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion. A portal shouldn't look like a chopped up list. Catfurball (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)" Legacypac 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Looks more like an outline than a portal. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Catfurball this one is objectively ugly. It is also outside the scope of WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral at this time. Unless a technical argument can be made for deletion, I won't try to assess because I will abstain as considering evangelical Christianity to be the wrong road to the right destination. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The perceived beauty of a portal is not a reason to keep or delete. If there is not a technical reason, I can't see any reason to delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

How about the seemingly random and incomplete list of topics included? There are plenty of Christian singers so why select the few that are there, especially since they are not particularly identified as Evangelical (never heard an artist classed as an Evangelical Christian artist, only as a Christian artist). Same issue with the schools and humanitarian sections. Even the list of denominations is seriously too short. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Non-exhaustivity criticism on list of topics applies to all portals. --ServB1 (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per the rationale of Walter Görlitz above. See also: WP:IMPERFECT. Concerns such as those above can be addressed by WP:COPYEDITING. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Delete This portal doesn't even look like a portal, but a list that looks like a blue skunk. And not many pictures. And plus the person who created this portal is an Evangelical christian, which is breaking Wikipedia rules.Catfurball (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that Evangelical Christians were barred from creating pages on Wikipedia. Can you point me to the relevant RfC or policy?--Auric talk 17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• *Keep. Project connected with the portal that exists in different languages (German since 2004, Russian since 2006, French since 2014, Spanish since 2017, Portuguese since 2017, English since 2017). Thank you very much. --ServB1 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That is a reasonable argument for an article to exist - not this ugly portal. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Several categories and articles (Category Evangelicalism which is a synonym for evangelical Christianity) are linked to the portal.--ServB1 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem is this topic is not a defined branch of Christianity or a denomination but more a loosely defined grouping of denominations. The portal assigns bands and singers and other random topics to the portal. It's editorial without the normal oversight checks and balances of a highly trafficed and edited article. Bad choice for a portal topic badly executed. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Since when did beauty become a deletion criterion ? Maybe I should MFD this page (on 1 April), it looks ugly and dated.... << FR ^(mobileUndo) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: FR30799386 has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. "This christian portal is so ugly" is not a valid deletion criteria. "Objectively ugly" is an oxymoron. "The person who created this portal is an Evangelical christian, which is breaking Wikipedia rules" is not a valid deletion criteria. (WTF?) The concerns about the content linked in the portal are best addressed through the normal editorial process, not through deletion. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is an outline, not a portal. Many of the links on the outline aren't about Evangelical Christianity, but about Christianity in general (Christmas, pastor, etc.). I don't know if the proper level is Portal:Religion or Portal:Christianity but Portal:Evangelical Christianity definitely isn't it. Even aside from the outline format or the color scheme or the article selection, there aren't enough high-quality articles about Evangelical Christianity to justify a portal in the first place. Leviv ich 22:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, here is another example: What defines a topics scope? On one hand, we can tell the story of Evangelicalism by contrasting it with other Christianity topics, narrowing the scope completely to articles which define Evangelicalism. That is a good way to add to the story of Christianity, but on the other hand refuses Evangelicalism the scope to be a story unto itself, perhaps even to the point of deserving a portal or not. The article, Evangelical Christianity is heavily blue-linked most of the way down the page, many topics being very specific to Evangelicalism, but half are general. There is no way to link to the God article,, holy communion or born again in a specifically evangelical way, yet these are core topics about what Evangelical Christianity means. What is the difference between a portal and an article on this specific point, when articles do not declare themselves part of a portals subject range, but are definitely part of the subject range? ^{~^\}\_\.rTG'{~ 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the introduction text, remove the rest, move to draft and start over. In its current state it looks like a navbox rather than a portal. Besides, as noted before, it should stay focused on Evangelical Christianity, not on Christianity in general, because Christianity has its own portal. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• By Wikipedia rules people of religion aren't supposed to edit or create articles related to their religion. User:ServB1 being an Evangelical he is breaking this Wikipedia rule by editing articles, but by also creating this ugly portal. He doesn't know how to correctly create portals, since he's not part of Wikipedia Project portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfurball (talk • contribs) 15:04, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

What rules? And, you don't need to be a member of a wikiproject to edit pages in the scope of the wikiproject. DexDor ^(talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Catfurball: False. If I edited a page about my religion/beliefs I would certainly not be breaking any policy (COI??). Please educate yourself further on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making such statements. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• About the portal: Delete for its narrow scope and ugliness. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Portals are supposed to provide a targeted overview of a topic, as you'll see in places like Portal:Politics or Portal:Spain. This, however, basically takes a bunch of related articles and divides them up by topic. This isn't even close to anything like Portal:Eastern Christianity or Portal:Christianity; it's just a bunch of article links without any actually useful organization. Nothing wrong with the topic having a portal, but it needs to be a portal, not this. Also, Catfurball, as noted above there's no such provision. Imagine if we forbade atheists from editing articles that don't address religion! Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Draft or WikiProject sub-page. The initial rationales for deletion given above are invalid, but I agree with the follow-up points about unhelpful and woefully incomplete selection of content. This has been in Portal space for two years and nobody has made the effort to bring it up to a decent standard yet. Perhaps this could also be renamed as Evangelical Christian subculture; that seems to dominate the content. It's not a good start for an Evangelical Christianity portal. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fayenatic: AIUI, for technical reasons portals do not work in any other namespace so moving is not possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf and Fayenatic, I thought the same thing, but we were wrong. See the history of Draft:Gibberish II. I created it at Portal:Gibberish, moved it to Portal:Gibberish II, and moved that to Draft:Gibberish II. Moving it like this was no harder than moving an article. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Just note if a portal has subpages (like this one does) the move should be done by someone with pagemover permissions so the subpages can all be moved at the same time; otherwise the one-by-one subpage moves are tedious and prone to error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This certainly needs improvement but deletion is not the way to achieve that (MfD is not cleanup). The topic is certainly broad enough to support a portal and we seem to have enough content available to do it justice. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• My vote is basically WP:TNT; I don't disagree with having such a portal on principle, but I don't see the current version as being fixable with anything short of 100% new content. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I concur - this could be a good portal topic (as portals go) but building off this mess is harder than starting over. Anyway it takes 12 seconds to make a new portal. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - This portal doesn't even look like [another] portal is a strong argument to keep, at least during the present cleaning process. Pldx1 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• would a redirect to Portal:Christianity or Evangelical Christian until someone is willing to build somethingbthat does not look so bad make everyone happy? Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems that this portal is maintained. Everything else is editorial decision. Moreover it takes 12 seconds to make a new portal only applies to the fake TTH-portals.

Portal:The Ohio State University[edit]

Portal:The Ohio State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Too narrow scope for this useless portal that gets 4 pageviews a day. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete part of a mass creation of Uni portals. One of many Uni portals, many mass created. Generally I don't think any company or org needs a portal. The article does a better job of describing the organization. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. This was actually created in Feb 2016, well before the current mess. I don't understand the rankings of US universities, but there appears to be sufficient content in the category Category:Ohio State University and its subcats to support a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete by throwing into Lake Erie. Too narrow. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep and broaden to be a portal about universities in Ohio, as while this institution seems broad enough on its own to support a portal, the other public universities in the state are unlikely to be, so using this a basis for a portal including them would seem to be the best all round. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop voting to keep things that don't exist. This is not about Portal:Universities in Ohio it is about a single school. If you want to create that portal I'll MFD it. Why Universities in Ohio or New York or any other arbitrary grouping of various schools that happen to reside in a given geographic area? We might have lists for that but not articles even. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your bad faith and inaccurate statements. I am recommending (remember this is not a vote) that this portal, which verifiably exists, be kept. I am also recommending that it be broadened, for the reasons I gave and you have ignored. Universities in the United States are largely organised per state, so that is a logical grouping. Before commenting again you might also wish to check your facts: see University System of Ohio, List of colleges and universities in Ohio, Category:Universities and colleges in Ohio, Template:Colleges and universities in Ohio, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also confused by a "keep and broaden" vote. You're saying move with redirect Portal:The Ohio State University to Portal:Universities of Ohio, and move all the subpages? Leviv ich 05:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep and expand – Plenty of content exists to improve the portal, such as the examples listed below.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep and improve (as original portal creator). I'm not really familiar with the mass portal creation + giant discussion that is currently going on, so I'm writing this from my own little vacuum. I know this doesn't make a difference for inclusion, but for context's sake since Legacypac brought it up, this portal is actually from a while back (as Espresso mentioned), and actually served early on as something for OSU students to work on as they onboarded and trained for Wikipedia editing. Took a look at WP:POG, and I'm confident in the amount of content we have on OSU (between notable people, buildings, groups, sports, etc.) to warrant a portal, and I'm happy to revisit and expand the portal + see if others in the Ohio sphere would be interested to as well. With most of the subject's articles being of historic nature and/or not rapidly changing, the risk of the portal falling out of date also isn't too high. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not really sure what people mean by there being enough content to warrant a portal. The fundamental question for all of these should be Does the existence of this page provide anything of value for the reader, or is it just a webhost for the creator? While I respect the intent SuperHamster had, looking over this, I see it as a WP:NOTWEBHOST issue. The collection of links in itself is not particularly useful to readers, and there isn't really anything gained here apart from the regular Ohio State page. I also find the suggestion to make it a portal about universities in Ohio a bit odd, given that someone would have to collect all the information about higher ed in the state of Ohio, and at that point it'd just be easier to write an article on the topic. Unfortunately, this is a delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep useful for navigation here, plenty of content. ɱ (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Tony; I see this as very little content–enough to put in the article or a navbox. A single school is too narrow of a topic for a portal, and also too promotional. Leviv ich 05:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - a portal is supposed to be for broad topics to help navigate all themany articles that may fall under it. A single university is not a broad topic that needs that kind of help. Its scope it too narrow. Right now its basically a fancy navbox, which is already at the end of all the related articles. Meszzy² (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This is not a portal, only a shameful joke. Plenty of content! The only notable people across two centuries are a footballer and another sportsman. What a great University! or perhaps: what a great portal! Pldx1 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: almost unused.

Despite @Legacypac's false claim in the first !vote above, this is not part of the wave of portal spam. Nor is simply a duplicate of a navbox; it has a handmade article list.

So this is one of the better portals. Yet in the months before it was nominated here (i.e. 20/12/2018 - 20/03/2019), it received only 4 pageviews per day. For the same period a year earlier (20/12/2017 - 20/03/2018) had 51 pageviews in 90 days.

Yet again, the evidence is very clear: readers do not use portals. Why? Because head articles do a significantly better job as a navigational hub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A friendly, general sidenote: Regarding the notion that, "readers do not use portals", this simply isn't true at all. For example, Portal:Arts has received 23,270 page views between 3/19/2019 - 4/8/2019. Meantime, The arts article has received 17,659 page views in the same time period — more page views than the article. No personal offense intended toward you, and I know that you're really into getting portals deleted for your own reasons, but the notion of "readers do not use portals" as a blanket statement for all portals is patently false, and misleading relative to the actual facts of the matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 7, 2019[edit]

Portal:Percentages[edit]

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

Portal:Fractions and ratios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A useless automated hodgepodge of topics, little of which has anything to do with math. Only 13 pages in Category:Percentages and some of those are miscatagorized. News is mostly election news. DYK is anything with % or percentage in the text. It's only good for a laugh at the automated output. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, no clear focus to this one, pages have little to do with the ostensible subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - As TPH says, because of the frequency with which a percentage is quoted with the assumption that the reader understands it as a fraction, the examples shed no light on the subject. A useless exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-01-04T07:07:18Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Did You Know there was an article about Baker's percentage... and that said article doesn't perceive that 1% of the mass of the floor is exactly the same as 1% of the total mass... unless your measures can detect the 1/10000... At 5%, this result into a 1/400 difference. Pldx1 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - From the portal itself, this great one: Did You Know that in the Battle of Kharistan in 737, the Umayyads caught the Turgesh khagan off guard with only a fraction of his army, and secured a victory that saved Arab rule in Central Asia ? What a great illustration of the concept of fraction. Maqāla fi l-jabr wa l-muqābala would have said Omar Khayyam four centuries later. Pldx1 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Meh. We need a speedy (or, at least, speedier) deletion criterion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We voted one at WP:X3 but it was closed with a supervote. Any solution to that? Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – 0% content, 100% bad idea to automate page creation. I got: Did you know... that up to 50% of a U.S. Federal Protective Forces detachment could be killed while defending a U.S. Department of Energy facility? Leviv ich 23:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Election "news" that is not news "31 March 2019 – 2019 Slovak presidential election

Anti-corruption candidate Zuzana Čaputová of the Progressive Slovakia party wins the second round of Slovakia's presidential election, defeating the governing party candidate Maroš Šefčovič, 58 percent versus 42%. She will be the country's first female head of state. (BBC)" It was a runoff so the votes total 100% but how does this help us understand about the math? Legacypac (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Thanks to the folks who opposed the proposed speedy deletion criterion for wasting more people's time on these... Reywas92^Talk 07:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America[edit]

Portal:Indigenous peoples of North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Older portal but overlapping scope with Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas so much they use the same head article. Also we have Portal:Indigenous peoples in Canada so this portal has little scope between the two topics. Portal:Indigenous peoples in the United States and Portal:Indigenous peoples in Mexico might be a good topics but this is not that. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure what to do with these. Honestly, I've never been impressed by either of them, and I've avoided adding them. Right now the formatting is broken on both: The images are too wide for even wide screen formats, spilling off the sides. Both have issues that need to be fixed before I'd add either to the articles I work on. I've actually removed these from articles. Maybe we can have some discussion here about cleaning these up and whether we can improve and salvage one or both of these. At the very least, I think they need to be co-ordinated with The wikiproject. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete unless a reason can be presented why this one is the appropriate level of detail. This is an ancient portal, but most of the early editing was by editors who are no longer active. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2006-03-12T16:54:31Z by User:Code Napoleon. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Replace I believe the proper step would be to just replace with Portal:Indigenous peoples in the United States vs. deleting the portal and leaving nothing especially since Portal:Indigenous peoples in Canada was created. That way everything related to the portal remains in order.Mcelite (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Hisar[edit]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hisar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:User Wikiproject Hisar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:WikiProject Hisar members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal, wikiproject and userbox for a minor Indian city, only a District capital (one of 723 District capitals). Portal has no meaningful updates since 2013. News is from 2012-2013 era. WikiProject has a single member - same user who made the portal and no discussion. If the user wants to userfy his work ok, but he has not edited since May 2018 [12] WikiProject India is not supporting this or seemingly any Indian portals. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Appears to be a useless collection of things. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2012-05-11T15:11:49Z by User:Vishal14k. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:American League[edit]

Portal:American League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just half of Portal:Major League Baseball which is itself a major subset of Portal:Baseball. Automated creation. Many of the teams have portals too so this is really narrow real estate for a portal. The National League does not have a portal I could find Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant with Portal:Major League Baseball —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-04T08:12:18Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete but without comment on whether the surviving portal, if any, should be Portal:Baseball or Portal:Major League Baseball. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - As a matter of terminology for non-North Americans, the American League and National League in baseball are what would be called conferences in American football, basketball, and ice hockey, the other major North American sports. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:American frontier[edit]

Portal:American frontier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Automated recent creation duplicating scope of older hand crafted Portal:American Old West Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-05T03:42:12Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Created recklessly duplicating an existing portal. (No comment on whether the older portal should be kept.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:American football strategy[edit]

Portal:American football strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obviously within the scope of Portal:American football Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Scope is too narrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T23:52:51Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Absurdly narrow focus, in wave of reckless creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:America's Next Top Model[edit]

Portal:America's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's a TV show, not a broad topic as required by WP:POG. No wikiproject for this topic. Category:America's Next Top Model contains 27 pages outside the head article and portal but 22 of them are just numbered seasons best presented on a list and navbox in the head article. There are also a list of BLPs associtated with this show but presumably they are all independantly notable with careers outside their appearance on the show, or they would not qualify for an article. Created with the mass creation tool by another prolific portal spammer. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - scope is too narrow to justify this mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2019-01-07T19:52:00Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Individual TV shows are too narrow an audience, and this one was created in a wave of reckless creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party[edit]

Portal:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Automated portal that is vastly inferior to the page at Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party. The reader is much better served at the article then this portal. Category:Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party is a little muddled but it is clear there is under 10 pages within the scope plus the member national parties which are much better presented on the list and navbox in the main article rather than randomly on the portal. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T23:52:28Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alauddin Khalji[edit]

Portal:Alauddin Khalji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Historical figure. Only 36 pages in Category:Alauddin Khalji which suggests insufficent scope for this mass created a portal a minute special. Maybe a proper portal could be made here but it would take time and care to be constructed correctly Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - mass created portal with too narrow scope to justify a portal. Meszzy² (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-04T08:05:30Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This single-person portal for a ruler of much of India was created during a period of reckless creation of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bread[edit]

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

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

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

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

Another crappy narrow scope portal. Portal:Bread gets 15 views a day compared to Bread which gets 1,393. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete silly portal idea because a nav box was available. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Bread should be eaten, not used as a doorstop. Overly narrow. Created during a period of reckless portal creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-14T09:58:11Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Did You Know that the only DYK of this portal is about the Poulsbo Bread that was developed in 1974, from two lines in the Book of Ezekiel, and discontinued in 2011. But you can read a map, locate Poulsbo and go there, to Sluys' Bakery, and discover that "it would be a cool place to live". According to Wikipedia, this kind of miracle occurred at least once, in 2008. Holly Wikipedia, give us our bread ! Pldx1 (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL. I found another overlapping topic and bundled it. Same editor. Also Portal:Sandwiches Portal:Hamburgers exist. Legacypac (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thanks for bringing up those portals. I have bundled the hamburgers and sandwiches portals but removed the flatbreads one because it is already in the mass del nom by BHG. Also pinging Robert McClenon and Pldx1 to share their thoughts on the bundled portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The big nomination may go off the rails. She just pulled the expansion which I think included flatbreads. If there are logical bundles for a specific debate we should include all similar pages regardless of being part of a big nomination. The worse that happens is the page turns red part way through one of the debates. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the additions in this case (already having said that the bread should be eaten), but taking issue with User:CoolSkittle expanding the nomination on day two, because this can cause the discussion to go off the rails, which is where the train wreck metaphor comes in. Please don't expand nominations after they start. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Noted. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

We actually broke MFD with too many translutions yesterday and it remains broken not displaying the oldest discussions. We also have the issues of voter fatigue and 5,000 more portals to sort through. Therefore bundling should be encouraged wherever it makes sense to reduce the problems we are facing. Everyone is watching the nominations they comment on, and can weigh in if they don't like a bundled items for some reason. That's my two cents. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Basshunter[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Basshunter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Stillborn Wikiproject with about 30 articles in it's total scope, about one person, and only one member, the creator. Zero discussion after 6+ months. No objection to the user userfying his work but this should not be a Wikiproject as the scope is too small.

Portal similarly lacks broad scope with just 30 articles in total scope. The supporting wikiproject is of course one person and therefore not a WikiProject (which is defined as a group of people). Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all Useless stillborn wikiproject and crud portal that need to be eliminated. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete both. In this case we can consolidate the two deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment What Wikipedia will gain on delete WP and portal? It include over 30 articles. Scope isn't too small. It's a lot of work to do. WP page is helpfull. Finally there are more WP's with one member or only or less than 30 articles total scope. Eurohunter (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

... what? CoolSkittle (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Read again. Eurohunter (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

nope, still don't get it. For future reference, WP is short for Wikipedia, so you appear to be saying "What Wikipedia will gain on delete Wikipedia". CoolSkittle (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No he means WikiProject. WikiProjects with only one or two members are failed ideas, still born, and deleted or data moved to userspace. WikiProjects require active members. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

oh I see. Perhaps we need a better acronym for wikiproject to avoid (my?) confusion. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought it will be understandable in discussion about WikiProject. I can go and try to find 2-3 members. I think it should be possible. Should I do it? The last option would be to move WikiProject page to Basshunter discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A wikiproject for one singer is not going to be able to gain and hold participemts. It's ju–st to narrow. We can move the page into your userspace or you can copy the key info there but no WikiProject in Wikipedia space makes sense for this narrow topic. Legacypac (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is many wikiprojects for one singer so it's not argument. Eurohunter (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Only because no one has bothered to seek deletion. Most Wikiprojects are dead anyway Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you see deletion of Christina Aguilera, Kylie Minogue or Rihanna wikiprojects? Eurohunter (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe... if they lack activity and are better handled under a wider scope wikiproject Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Schould I find more participants then? Eurohunter (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Mass-created portals based on a single navbox[edit]

Single navbox portals: Nominator's rationale[edit]

Every one of the 1,426 1,390 2,698 1,390 portals included in this mass nomination is a mass creation based on a single navbox. That is, their list of selected articles (using {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox. For example, Portal:Football in Jordan is based solely on Template:Football in Jordan.

This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:

• the navbox displays a full list of the articles. The portal displays only one page at a time, out of a randomly selected subset of up to 50 articles.
• the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:

• both the topic navbox and related navboxes
• A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

I propose deleting all these portals in one go because,

1. Being each built on a single navbox, they add no navigational utility, and are an inferior fork of another navigational tool
2. Portals are not content; they are merely a means of navigating between content. So their mass deletion removes precisely zero encyclopedic content.
3. The pages were rapidly mass-created. They were all created by the topic-banned portalspammer @The Transhumanist, who describes the creation process as taking betwen one and two minutes per portal (Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)). It would be a severe waste of the community's time to spend more collective time assessing each of them individually than was spent on their creation.

Some of these portals cover narrow topics which should never have a portal. Others cover broad topics which might be capable of supporting a thoughtfully-designed and properly-curated portal which used a selected article list extending way beyond the navbox. So I propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion has been listed[13] at WP:CENT, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Tagging. All 1,426 nominated portals are now tagged. Many thanks to @JJMC89 for kindly helping without even being asked. That made the job much faster. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Single navbox portals: List[edit]

These portals were selected by screen-scraping the first four most recent pages of @The Transhumanist's page creations in portalspace, taking 500 pages at a time. I then processed that list of 2000 pages in AWB, removing duplicates, then excluding redirects and pages already tagged for an MFD discussion. I then used an AWB Custom module to exclude portals which were not based on a single template. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update. Following a comment below by @Northamerica1000, I realised that I had not run an explicit check for portals which had been converted not to use the automated format. I just ran that check, and found 36 portals which should not have been included in this nomination. I have removed them from the list of nominated pages, and will untag them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The following portals have been withdrawn from this nomination, and untagged in these edits.[14] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• 1,308 portals added. I originally envisaged this discussion as a test of the principle of deleting mass-created portals based on a single navbox. I therefore started with a subset of the first 4 pages of automated single-navbox-based portal creations by @The Transhumanist (TTH).

However, here has been much more interest in this proposal than I had expected, so it seems to me that it would be helpful to expand the scope of this nomination to include ALL such portals. That will allow the community to make one decision on the whole set.

I have now completed my scanning process to go back to 13 August 2018, which appears to be when TTH began creating automated portals. That has produced a list of a further 1,308 portals, which I have added to the nomination, below.

As with the first list, these portals meet all of the follwing criteria: created by TTH; not a redirect or disambiguation page; not tagged for another MFD discussion; automated; their list of selected articles (using {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Per requests in the discussion below, I have withdrawn the 1,308 additions. I thought that the addition was a good way of allowing the community to decide this issue in one discussion, and I had not foreseen that the addition would be controversial. However, it clearly is controversial, so I withdraw the extra set. Sorry for the disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Single navbox portals: List-making process[edit]

The process by which this list was made is set out at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Selection process. The AWB module which I used is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/AWB module. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Single navbox portals: discussion and survey[edit]

add your delete/keep/comment here

• Support deletion as spam. Renata (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Original !vote stands regardless of the below !drama of additional portal nominations. Renata (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results supports this. Portals Update #29 confirms that these took a minute each including finding a page with a nav box (no effort was put into assessing scope or adherence to WP:POG as TTH informed us the failure of WP:ENDPORTALS means the portal guidelines don't matter and any portal like the 1500 kept there justify any similar topic). The WP:X3 discussion also supports this - 22 editors support mass deletion while only 14 oppose which is 2:1 good consensus. Legacypac (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that this is not a forum-shopping re-run of the X3 proposal, which as closed as "no consensus". This is a much narrower proposal which includes only those portals which as of today still draw their content list from only a single navbox.

  X3 would included all mass-created portals, regardless of how much they had been developed since creation. By selecting only those portals which duplicate a navbox, I have addressed the concerns of those editors who feared that a list based solely on mass creation might have included some portals which resulted from greater active curation and selection, and which would therefore need a lot of work to re-create. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. I also note that this is a 1426 page subset of the 3500+ pages created by this same user using the same system, plus the hundreds of older portals they converted to this automated junk format. Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep all. Navboxes have excellent support for portals, and the argument that portals are a redundant tool for navigation proves too much – it goes against WP:CLT. wumbolo ^^^ 18:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wumbolo: to avoid egg on your face, please do take time to actually read WP:CLT before you namecheck it in support of a claimed logical point. Its full title is Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, and it does not mention portals anywhere in its text. And it most certainly does not advocate building portals whose scope precisely duplicates a single navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Portals are a distinct tool for navigation. They are no more redundant to navboxes than categories or lists. That's obvious from looking at a portal and seeing all the different elements. wumbolo ^^^ 18:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That's a point-of-view which you can hold if you want to, @Wumbolo. But unless and until you get consensus to amend WP:CLT to include portals, it remains only your own WP:ILIKEIT position. Please don't misrepresent as actual consensus-based policy your own aspiration for a policy change. WP:RFC is thataway; please do tell us how you get on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all Thank you for taking the time to nominate these pages which are a huge burden to Wikipedia. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, not only because of the brainless mass creation (The Transhumanist serves its name), but also because no effort was undertaken in involving the community and especially the first or main authors of articles and navboxes which now suddenly appear to have a portal?! Tisquesusa (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all, the mass creation was a terrible idea. Some of the topics are portal-worthy (like Portal:German literature or Portal:Henan), some are not (Portal:Percentages has content in all sections, but it is absolutely useless). Many of the navboxes have a lot of content of different types, which makes a very jumbled navigational experience when randomized in a portal. More care is necessary when creating portals so the result is useful and improves navigation instead of being a confusing mess. —Kusma (t·c) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:The Transhumanist's userspace to allow those interested to sort out any that are reasonable and return them to the mainsapce. I am explicitly suggesting userspace as opposed to draftspace so that the pages are not subject to deletion after an arbitrary period of time. I would also support moving these to subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, which may perhaps even be a better location for these. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  The individual differences between the portals are the title, the main article and the name of the navbox used. They are easy to re-create just from the list in this MfD (or using the one-click script that TTH used to make them). In other words, moving these pages around does not really save any future portal creator a meaningful amount of time or effort. —Kusma (t·c) 19:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • (ec)@Godsy: that's not technically possible. Similar ideas were discussed at the X3 RFC, but these portals are all template code, which doesn't work in userspace.

  In any case, userfication is not needed for pages whose creator tells us that they can be re-created in an average of only 90 seconds. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  They seem to display fine in userspace, e.g. User:Godsy/Portal example. ~1430 portals represents approximately 36 hours of work, based on the creation time provided above. It would probably take less than half an hour to mass move these to another location. That aside, I believe the portal script (which I cannot put my finger on offhand) is currently blanked and there is no consensus to use it, making recreating these that way problematic. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for that test, @Godsy. Your test page seems to work fine, so I have struck my technical comment. It seems like either I misunderstood that part of RFC discussion, or whoever posted that was wrong.

  Since there seems to be no technical barrier, the question is whether the community wants to dump 1390 pages into the userspace of a editor who record in this area is at best controversial. Personally, I do not favour adding yet another stage to this drama by giving these pages a half-life, but we;ll see where consensus lies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Godsy, BrownHairedGirl, I was one of the people advocating against the moving/userfying of portals. Userfying or incubating in draft space is technically not a problem for the single-page portals, but very difficult for old-style multi-page portals with lots of selectively transcluded subpages. Some portals use relative paths for the pages they transclude, some use {{PAGENAME}}, some use absolute locations. All three break in certain scenarios (depending on page name and how many slashes there are in the name), and require a substantial amount of editing to fix when the page is moved. The single-page layout avoids this problem, while having other drawbacks of course. —Kusma (t·c) 11:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all. These portals are extremely unnecessary. They're just more annoying versions of navboxes. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (post-addition of 2nd batch) Reaffirm delete without prejudice to recreation in a more thoughtful manner by others. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all - These portals are simply unnecessary and inaccessible navboxes that are difficult for normal editors to edit and maintain. A portal should be an interesting and unique way to navigate a broad subject, for exmaple, Mathemetics or English Literature - and it should be tailored to navigating that broad subject. When a subject is so broad it becomes difficult to navigate and find information, that is when it needs a portal - to help people navigate a huge broad subject. These portals that are mass generated from navboxes do not provide a use, because their subjects are not broad enough to need a portal to help navigate them. It's simply a confusing page containing the navbox already found at the end of each associated page. We could have a few interesting and unique portals for a few big broad subjects, but instead we just have thousands of this automated spam which is nothing more than a glorified navbox. Meszzy² (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all - mass-created portals are pointless and add nothing in the way of real content to the encyclopedia: they are all front and no bottom. This is exactly the kind of thing that quickly puts readers off. People come here to find real pages written by humans. If there is value in portals at all, it is in carefully hand-crafted introductions to a field. You won't find that in any of the pages here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all If any seem like actually suitable topics for portals, they can be recreated with actual effort per WP:TNT. SemiHypercube 20:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all. I could have sworn I already voted to delete some of these, but oh well...mass-created portals have little to no value; the examples I have seen provide no more information that the navboxes (or sometimes singles articles) they were based on. The navboxes have the added advantage of fitting into the articles (although they are often quite ugly); thus, the portals are redundant, and should be deleted. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all – per nom and everyone above, as content-less forks of navboxes mass-created without community consent. Leviv ich 20:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think a mass deletion like this is the right way to go about this.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Whilst I agree in principle, to debate the individual merits of 1,426 portals is not practical. --John B123 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Trekker, there have been discussions in various venues for over a month. In that time I have seen no proposal on how delete large numbers of sub-standard without either mass deletions or vastly disproprtionate amounts of editorial time. Remember that each of these portals took between one and two minutes to create. Why should the community spend more time assessing each one than was spent in their creation?

  This nomination groups a large number of portals with a common flaw. If there is a consensus that this flaw warrants deletion, then individual assessment is un-needed, and would actually be a breach of WP:MULTI and WP:FORUMSHOP. Much better to have that discussion in one place ... and so far I see an unusually well-attended MFD with only one editor arguing that there is any useful purpose in an automated portal whose scope is precisely the same as a single navbox is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete on the proviso that this does not prejudice a well made recreation of any that would meet the WP:POG guidelines. --John B123 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Whilst I previously agreed that as a one-off in these cases deletion was the most pragmatic solution, as per the original nomination, doubling the number of portals was not what I supported. Although the further 1,300 have now been removed, I can see if the result of this discussion is delete, then there will a further nomination for the second 1,300 using this as a precedent. --John B123 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @John B123, that seems illogical. If there is consensus to delete 1,390 portals because of a common flaw, why would it not be appropriate for a further discussion to consider deleting the remaining 1308 which meet the same criteria?

  I could understand a "keep" based on an editor rejecting the proposition that a portal based on a single navbox is a bad idea. But your stance now seems to amount to "would have supported deleting the first 50%, but not the second 50%". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: Not illogical at all. The goalposts have moved. The original nomination gave reasons, specific to the first 1,300 portals which were mass created by a single user. No real explanation was given for the second addition. I seems very presumptuous to think because people have supported A they will automatically support B. It seems this is rapidly turning into a precedent for those who are against portals in general to nominate willy nilly. --John B123 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  @John B123, the goalpsosts have not moved by one single millimetre. The second bath was explicitly selected for exactly the same reasons as the first batch, and the list was built in exactly the same way. I just finished the set, which I should probably have done at the beginning.

  The only difference between the first set and the second is that the lists were made 19 hours apart.

  As I noted[15] when I added the second batch: I have now completed my scanning process to go back to 13 August 2018, which appears to be when TTH began creating automated portals. That has produced a list of a further 1,308 portals, which I have added to the nomination, below. As with the first list, these portals meet all of the following criteria: created by TTH; not a redirect or disambiguation page; not tagged for another MFD discussion; automated; their list of selected articles (using {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox.

  I heard what editors said that they did not want more pages added, which is why I reverted. I misjudged how that would be seen, and thought that pinging everyone would keep it all above board; but clearly not. Sorry.

  But I still don't see why you thought that deleting 1390 portals was ok, but deleting a further 1308 on exactly the same grounds is outrageous. Either being a drive-by-automated portal which duplicates a navbox is grounds for deletion, or it isn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think 1390 to 2698 is a massive move in goalposts. I have only your word that the same criteria apply to the second batch. You may well be 100% correct, or there may be a difference that is significant. As I don't have a clue as to what the portals are, I can't judge for myself. I'm afraid I don't blindly follow irrespective of who says something is so. --John B123 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Soft Delete All - Delete all 1426 with the understanding that this close does not prejudice subsequent creation of another portal with the same subject in accordance with whatever new rules are in effect about portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @John B123, the current version of the WP:POG guidelines clearly does not reflect community consensus. If it did, we wouldn't have had the recent months of drama. But I agree that if and when there is a consensus on portal guidelines, then deletion here should not prevent recreation according to whatever criteria the community has agreed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all Without prejudice to a more thoughtful recreation per Robert McClenon. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Portal:English. During the process at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination), Fram performed a merge of Portal:English language and Portal:English (permanent link). Fram then later performed the action of reverting Portal:English to the older version (diff), which is the present version of the portal. Are there any other portals nominated herein that perhaps shouldn't be included in the bulk nomination, or is this the only one? Figuring this out would require going through each portal, which sure would take a long time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @Northamerica1000. My AWB module which checked the pages did not envisage the possibility that some of the portals had been converted to a nonautomated format. So I just ran a check, and find that that there 36 nominated portals in that set. I will now strike all 36 from the nomination, and untag them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for the prompt (like instant) response. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
      • You're welcome, @Northamerica1000. Thanks again for the pointer, and for being so nice about it. The list is now amended, and all 36 have been untagged, in these edits[16]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - if deletion is decided upon (and I agree that many of the arguments made for that here are certainly convincing), I think it is important that, as others have argued above, that some of these topics could have portals recreated - albeit in a different way - in the future as they do have the potential to be useful (other I suspect less so). For instance a city like Glasgow with its long and rich history, significant contribution to world culture and sizable population, I think a portal could be quite a useful way in and potentially have a lot of content (and indeed to much content to cover in a template/navbox without cluttering it). Equally I would think there are other topics such as Mecca that you would expect to have a portal on. On the other hand I would agree that in some cases there is never likely to be enough material that a template/navbox cannot cover it adequately, particularly for some of the smaller towns/counties. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  Seems to me any re-created portal would be different from the version that was deleted and would "satisfy" the concern that led to deletion (i.e., a "hand-recreated" portal wouldn't be a script-generated navbox fork), and thus any recreated portals would rise and fall on their own merit based on whatever the portal standards were at the time of creation. In other words, re-created portals would be judged the same as any other portal. Leviv ich 00:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all: the portals simply don't aid readers, at least not in any non-negligible numbers (based on their pageviews). Editors looking for somewhere to help out on the project need to be pointed in directions other than portals, because it's just busywork when we have millions of mainspace articles with serious issues that desperately need editor attention (and not the tag-bombing kind, the kind where people dive in and actually start fixing the article's problems). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all These portals are nothing but spam. I also support the deletion of the 1,308 portals that User:BrownHairedGirl added. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all their creation were a mistake to begin with. Pichpich (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all (including the ones added to the nomination) as none of these meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all, but... as a comment/suggestion I think we can have people nominate to keep certain ones, and if they have enough votes we'll see what to do about those. I'm not saying if someone randomly wants to keep some portal then we should do it, I'm saying that if we see value in something and it gets a sufficient amount of votes to keep, then we should. This way, we can easily mass-delete the portals while leaving out specific ones that people feel are important. Everything about the deletion itself has been discussed already (the portals are basically navboxes, etc.), and I agree with deleting for the most part. Pie3141527182 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Turning this into a WP:TRAINWRECK would defeat the efficency of dealing with this mess as a set. Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, that's true. In that case, I agree with Nigej below: Delete all and then recreate portals as necessary through individual votes. Pie3141527182 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all as spam. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• KEEP!!, I am wondering what is the standard for deteting this Portal, maybe all of you can search Portal:Taipei, why this portal can be keep? That's werid.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Chinyen Lu, nobody is searching for Portal:Taipei or any of these others, hence this discussion. We're not talking about removing something that anyone actually finds useful; we're talking about clearing out clutter that duplicates existing content and in most cases literally gets no readers. ‑ Iridescent 07:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Chinyen Lu, I just checked, and find that Portal:Taipei was not part of my nomination, and that you added it to the nomination here [17]. I have now removed it.

  It is bizarre that you object to a deletion proposal solely on the basis of it including a page which yourself added to the proposal. I hope you will explain why you did that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all on the understanding that if someone wants to manually recreate any of these and is willing to undertake to update and maintain it, they're free to do so pending any future discussion on the future of portals. ‑ Iridescent 07:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, all of the above and Iridescent's comment (with regards to recreation). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Some, No Opinion on the Rest – Specifically, Keep the black holes portal and the Quantum Mechanics portal. These are 2 major areas in astronomy and/or physics, particularly Quantum Mechanics. Some of the other portals also have merit, such as some of the conflict-related portals. However, I have to say that the vast majority of the portals listed appear to be far too specific in scope. Several portals that cover the broad scope of those topics would be more appropriate for the majority of them. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  The main reason these pages are up for deletion is not because their scope is too specific, but rather because they are basically inaccessible fancy navboxs. Yes black holes and quantum mechanics are major areas, but their main articles already have the same copy of the navbox at the end of their articles. These portals serve no purpose in that regard. Meszzy² (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Individual portals can be recreated if required. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep all without prejudice to smaller nominatons. This is orders of mangnitude too many to evaluate in a single discussion. I'm unconvinced that the nominator or those in favour of deletion have actually even looked at most of these. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Upgrading to speedy keep given my comments below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf, as clearly set out in the nomination, this nomination is explicitly based on not individually evaluating them. These portals have been selected as part of the portalspammers's output, and as being automated portals based on a single navbox. I have made no attempt to examine them individually, because as noted in the nomination it would be a severe waste of the community's time to spend more collective time assessing each of them individually than was spent on their creation..

  It is sad but unsurprising to see that that Thryduulf continues to advocate the timesink of individual assessment of drive-by portals which all share a common, fatal flaw. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all - not needed. GiantSnowman 10:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Soft delete - These portals can be deleted and gradually recreated as old-style bespoke portals with subpages.--Auric talk 12:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Note: This !vote refers to the original 1,390 portals nominated, and not the later added 1,308 portals.--Auric talk 14:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Auric, I thought that the addition of the remaining pages which meet the same criteria would be helpful, but it rapidly became clear that I misjudged that. So I withdrew the additions. The scope of the nomination has restored to the original 1,390 portals nominated. Sorry for the unintended disruption.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all I was - and still remain - a firm supporter of the concept of Portals, and thought The Transhumanist did a great job last year during and after the RfC in the face of some determined editors seeking their mass deletion on wholly inappropriate grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was also impressed by TH's initial efforts and clear commitment to show the community that those editors' !votes for portal deletion were unwarranted, and that Portals are used by visitors, and that numbers aren't relevant as a rationale for deletion. Unfortunately, in showing the community that Portals are justified, and that they can be far more than moribund "topic tasters" for a relatively small number of broad subject areas, we now have a situation where the creation of innumerable trivial portals has probably served only to weaken and undermine the worth of those original portals plus the few others created for valid reasons as a result of the very welcome resurgence of interest (thanks to TH's and others' enthusiasm). In a sense, those who were so vociferous in demanding that all Portals, and even portalspace itself, be deleted have brought this problem on themselves; but that's no excuse for the subsequent mass creation of portals like these. They should go. It is especially sad that those who disliked Portals from the outset have now been re-invigorated in their campaign to expunge them entirely. In this particular instance, however, I feel they may be justified. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Withdrawing my !vote, as explained below. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• NOTE: 1,308 portals added: new total 2,698 pages. I originally envisaged this discussion as a test of the principle of deleting mass-created portals based on a single navbox. I therefore started with a subset of the first 4 pages of automated single-navbox-based portal creations by @The Transhumanist (TTH).

However, there has been much more interest in this proposal than I had expected, so it seems to me that it would be helpful to expand the scope of this nomination to include ALL such portals. That will allow the community to make one decision on the whole set.

I have now completed my scanning process to go back to 13 August 2018, which appears to be when TTH began creating automated portals. That has produced a list of a further 1,308 portals, which I have added to the nomination, above.

As with the first list, these portals meet all of the following criteria: created by TTH; not a redirect or disambiguation page; not tagged for another MFD discussion; automated; their list of selected articles (using {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox.

Pinging all those who made a !vote so far: @Legacypac, Renata3, Wumbolo, CoolSkittle, Tisquesusa, Kusma, Godsy, Pythoncoder, Meszzy2, Chiswick Chap, SemiHypercube, Vanamonde93, Levivich, John B123, Robert McClenon, Tazerdadog, Northamerica1000, Bilorv, Susmuffin, Pichpich, UnitedStatesian, Pie3141527182, Feezo, Chinyen Lu, Iridescent, Lugnuts, LightandDark2000, Nigej, Thryduulf, GiantSnowman, Auric, and Nick Moyes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Additions withdrawn. I had not foreseen that the addition would be controversial, but since it clearly is controversial, I have withdrawn the addition pf 1,308 pages. Sorry for the unintended disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I continue to support deletion with the expanded scope. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Flaming hell! I cannot express in polite terms just how inappropriate this now is (and it was bad enough before!). I am not opposed to bundling, but it is impossible to do due diligence on a fraction of these. Given the track record of portal deletionists I cannot trust that all the nominated pages actually meet the criteria that are claimed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf, it is long past time for you stop attributing to me the misconduct which you may have identified in other editors. We have had that discussion before; please strike the ABF.

  If you or any other editor would like to examine, check, or re-run the methodology which I used to create these list according to the specified criteria, I would be very happy to publish on subpages of this discussion all the steps which I took to create each list, including the AWB module which I wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: Once again, I will not withdraw an hosest expression of my opinions because you don't like it. This discusison is your responsibility, not anyone else's, and per GiantSnowman and Nick Moyes below, it really does not feel like good faith and WP:AGF is not an end-run around the requirements of WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I would politely suggest that BHG stops adding any more portals to this discussion. It's already huge, and it would be better to establish consensus here before dealing with the rest. GiantSnowman 13:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman so far as I am aware, the recent addition of 1,308 more portals completes the set of portals which meet the stated criteria. I had no plans to look for any more, but per your request I give an assurance that I will add no more to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  My polite suggestion inferred (clearly insufficiently) that you withdraw these recent additions as well. GiantSnowman 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  OK, that's 3 clear requests to withdraw the additions, so I will do so. It will take a few minutes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Withrawing my !vote No! No! No! No! No! It's not acceptable for BrownHairedGirl to double the numbers from 1,308 to 2,698 because she feels she's now getting more support than she "had expected", and then assume those who have given support one way or another to any original proposal will happily allow them to take our !vote and apply it to anything other than a minor correction. On a matter of principle I am now withdrawing my !vote, and propose that her attempt to rig the system by vastly increasing the topic under discussion should itself be withdrawn. This is not an OK way to behave. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nick Moyes, I am sorry that you feel that way. I absolutely had no intention of rigging anything, and my addition was based on the level of interest, not of support

  In my experience, it is common at XFD to add more pages which meet the same close criteria, to centralise discussion per WP:MULTI and avoid debating the same issues twice. I did so very transparently, only ~20 hours after discussion opened, with no change in criteria, and I gave a clear explanation of what I had done and why. I absolutely did not presume anything; that's why I promptly pinged all those who had cast a !vote so far, including yourself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, and I thank you for that notification. Some of those portals you originally proposed for deletion were actually getting as many -or more- visitors than some 'traditional' portals. I neither have the time to check the validity or the traffic to these extra thousand plus pages you've just tacked on, but it is more the seeming misuse of process which concerns me here, and seems somewhat reminiscent of how a few of the 'antis' tried to change the portal deletion proposal (albeit at an RfC not an XfD), perhaps because they thought they were on to a winner. I am genuinely saddened that we have arrived at a situation of such polarisation that the actual success of the Portal revitalisation project now threatens Portals all over again. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  More than doubling the number of pages under discussion from an already overwhelming 1300 is not anything like "common". If you want a centralised discussion start an WP:RFC and get consensus for the mass deletion of portals first - remember there have been several attempts to do this already that have failed to get consensus, and multiple open that are getting far from unanimous support. This is disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, doubling the number of pages under discussion is common. Many XFDs have much greater proportional expansion, and I thought that the proportion was the main issue. However, three editors have objected, so I clearly misjudged that. It was never my intention to disrupt anything, so I have withdrawn the additions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Nope, the problem is a combination of both the sheer number (even 1300 is way too many) and the proportion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  If the proportion was a problem, then adding one page to a single-page XfD nomination would be unacceptable. That is clearly not the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all - with the following restriction: the script that will be used to nuke all these 1,354 spam-portals will have to verify that, at the very moment to proceed, the portal to be nuked meet all of the criteria that were advertised, namely:

1. created by TTH;
2. not a redirect or disambiguation page;
3. not tagged for another MFD discussion;
4. automated;
5. the list of selected articles (using {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}}) is drawn solely from a single navbox.

Publishing this script would be great. By the way, I cannot express in polite terms just how inappropriate this is to argue about it is impossible to do due diligence on a fraction of these 1,354 deletions... when the same person is requiring the community do due diligence on 3500+ spam-portals. Pldx1 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Pldx1, I think it's a great idea to everything check before deletion, so I am happy support that proposal for verification.

Unfortunately, it is not a single script. The selection process involved 6 steps, with the custom AWB module used only as the last step. However, the custom module could be used on the list to verify that it meets the last two criteria. The other criteria can also be verified by AWB, though in separate steps.

It will take me a bit of time to document the process I used, so I will publish it when finished, hopefully later today. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1, the process by which this list was made is now set out at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Selection process. The AWB module which I used is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/AWB module. Hope this helps.

@Thryduulf, you had concerns about the process, so you may also find this useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Delete - ^{See following explanation by BHG.} at least some...unless someone can explain to me why Portal:Wildlife of Nepal and Portal:Wildlife of India or the music portals serve no purpose. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Atsme, this nomination does not take a view on whether any of the topics is a suitable topic for a portal. The proposition is that the current portal which replicates a single navbox adds no value beyond that navbox, and that readers are better served without the duplication.

  In the two cases which cite, Portal:Wildlife of Nepal is simply a full-page version of Template:Wildlife of Nepal, and Portal:Wildlife of India is simply a full-page version of Template:Wildlife of India.

  The nomination explicitly proposes in bolded text that "that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time". Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Thank you, BHG, your explanation helped. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

• Comment in response to comments about wanting to check these one by one. We have checked ad deleted one by one and in small groups over 500 portals now. We broke MFD today. There is not a word of unique content in any of these pages, it is all harvested, often wildly inappropriately, from other places. 2:1 the community voted to nuke every TTH portal. Some of the opposers to nuking demanded an MfD so here we are. Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - if the support for deletion here is due to the pages being nothing more than glorified navboxes, what difference does adding more of these pages make? We are not looking for topics which might be notable enough to deserve a portal - the point of this discussion is because these pages are just fancy pages nobody is using that were automatically created like spam. Even if a topic is notable, deleting its fancy navbox currently called a portal is of no loss. We found more of these fancy navboxes that we all seem to think are of no value, and so should be added in. What are we looking to save here? Meszzy² (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a lot like what I thought, Meszzy2. If editors don't approve of deleting portals based on these criteria, then it seem to me to be better for them to have the whole lot rejected in one go. And if they do approve of the deletion, then again better to do it in one go. But clearly that's not how it was seen by three editors coming from different perspectives, so I withdrew the additions and I won't put them back. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I would note that of the three editors against your addition to this MFD, the two that were mostly oppossed to it both were already in a very small minority pretty much in favour of the portals - and as such if they were actually put to discussion we would see a majority support for their deletion. I guess there's no harm in developing a consensous here first though. Meszzy² (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: (edit conflict) What's the point of keeping these portals if the entire value of portals was to provide readers with a broad array of resources and links? These spam portals have undermined the value of all portals by being low-quality breeding grounds for more transclusions in WP:MFD; they provide no use for the project. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 16:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all and commendations to BHG for starting these proceedngs. ——SerialNumber54129 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Kudos to the nominator for coming up with an objective, quantifiable standard to identify specifc types of problematic/useless portals. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Having got support on this page for deletion of of a specified set of portals, to suddenly add a great number of other portals with the hope of also getting them deleted seems an abuse of process to me. --John B123 (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to thank User:BrownHairedGirl twice. The first thanks is a repeat of my previous thanks for nominating the first package. The second is for withdrawing the addition to the bundle. In general, bundling of nominations is a good idea, but only if done synchronously. The adding of items to a bundle after it starts proceeding through the deletion debate is confusing and can cause the train to go off the rails. So I stand by my original !vote to delete the first ~1300 portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Soft delete I remain a firm believer in the utility of well-made portals, but mass creation is not the way to go. And it does not seem right to me to spend more time on deletion than was spent on automated creation. However, this MfD should not prevent the recreation of any of these portals in a legitimate fashion. Lepricavark (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I am not a fan of portals as I don't understand any intrinsic encylopedic relevance and none of these seems special.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence these portals are of use to anyone, they simply clutter the encyclopedia and project. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per the nominator's rationale. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• 'A Question for @BrownHairedGirl: From your opening statement, your rationale for deleting these portals is "1. Being each built on a single navbox, they add no navigational utility ...." and 3. "The pages were rapidly mass-created. They were all created by the topic-banned portalspammer @The Transhumanist ....."

With reference to Portal:Wildlife of IndiaPortal:Indian wildlife, mentioned above, I checked the Portal and found the following:

1. It was created in April 2007 by Sushant gupta, NOT The Transhumanist, who only made his first ever edit to that Portal on 12 April 2018, to add a deletion notice. Following edits dealt with mainly techical adjustments to box styles, file paths etc.

2. It is NOT built on a single navbox, but relies on subpages.

3. The intro is transcluded from Wildlife of India, the Selected article, Selected image, Subcategories, Did you know, Things you can do, Wikiprojects and Related portals sections all draw their content from appropriately named sub pages, NOT a navbox.

Admittedly these subpages are rather sparse at present, but hold scope for suitable expansion into a decently curated Portal.

I only joined the WikiProject after a lengthy Wikibreak, returning to find all Portals were up for deletion. I found that the development of the new tools were immensely useful for Portal mainetnance. I had maintained Portal:Scotland for a number of years but, due to my Wikibreak, it was horribly out of date when I returned so I set about updating it with the new templates and arrived at a hybrid solution - not fully "automated" but still hand curated. The first inkling I had that TTH may have been "losing the plot" was when he "restarted" Portal:Scotland in January 2019. (see this exchange for details). I had no idea he was about to start on a mass Portal creation run, otherwise I may have paid more attention and perhaps noticed some of the problems. I believe in the utility of a properly curated portal as a navigational aid for the casual reader. I would much rather use Portal:Wildlife of IndiaPortal:Indian wildlife than Template:Wildlife of India on a casual basis because it gives a much more colourful and user friendly introduction to a broad subject, rather than the sparseness of the typical navbox. The latter is much more suited to a reader homing in on a particular aspect of the subject such as a specific rare Indian tree frog, for example. Long live the Portals I say (don't all shout at once ....)

I suggestPortal:Wildlife of IndiaPortal:Indian wildlife should be excluded from the list because, for this Portal at least, your rationale for inclusion fails. This begs the question: How many other Portals on your list does this apply to? This is one of the problems that this issue, and the resulting hysteria, has created: the relentless drive for deletion as rapidly as possible, leads to this and other kinds of error. You've already removed 36 Portals from the list due to an error pointed out by Northamerica1000. There is no urgent deadline to meet. It's not harming the Project, particularly as reader numbers for Portals are so spectacularly low, as is repeatedly pointed out by the "anti-Portal camp" Why the rush? The sky is not falling. I think a more measured approach to eliminate these kinds of any errors would pay dividends for everybody in the long run, and reduce the heat surrounding this issue.

This is exactly the same kind of sloppiness that The Transhumanist has been accused of by not checking the results of his "Portal creation spree". The same argument could be levelled at yourself and other Portal MfD nominators, whether it be inappropriate bundling of unrelated Portals, or other matters. or Portals that fail the stated criteria for inclusion on a speedy deletion list. It's as much of a "deletion spree" as TTH's "creation spree". Both could be categorized as constituting frenzied activity, consequently running the risk of being error prone. I also think it's disrespectful of you to continually refer to TTH as a "topic-banned portalspammer". It's not the kind of language you expect from an experienced editor. I think the worst TTH has done is display a monumental error of judgement, having been seduced by and fallen under the spell of the shiny new toys that were developed by the WikiProject to assist with ease of maintenance. I think the constant barrage of deletion nominations flooding his talk page is enough to obviate the need for a trouting for over zealousness. I hope that the mad rush to delete all these portals "like yesterday" can be toned down a number of notches. It's completely unneccesary, there really is no URGENT deadline. I think your (and others) efforts would be better spent preparing that RfC on Portal Requirements, which I think is long overdue and I would welcome.

For the record, my position on this proposal is:

• Delete all that properly fulfill the stated criteria, keep Portal:Wildlife of India Portal:Indian wildlife and all those that don't properly fulfill the stated criteria and can be realistically saved / suitably expanded into a decently curated Portal. But for the love of God, slow down the rate of nominations, stop bulk nominations and put much more consideration into selection of suitable candidates. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)*

NOTE The above statement should be read with the qualification that I was referring to the wrong Portal, and NOT the one that BHG had nominated. ie Portal:Indian wildlife instead of Portal:Wildlife of India. BHG's nomination of Portal:Wildlife of India meets her declared criteria fully. Please see the exchange below immediately following this notice. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Reply @Cactus.man. That's a fine wall of text, but before you launch into a speech and accuse me of sloppiness, you should check your facts:

  1. Portal:Wildlife of India was created[18] on 00:18, 12 February 2019‎ by The Transhumanist.
  2. The article list is based entirely on Template:Wildlife of India. You or anyone else can edit the page to view the source code:

{{Box-header colour|Selected general articles}}
{{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more=
| Template:Wildlife of India
|
}}

I look forward to your apology.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Found your error, @Cactus.man.

With a little burrowing through the contributions of User:Sushant gupta, I found that that on 12:13, 16 April 2007‎, User:Sushant gupta created[19] the page Portal:Indian wildlife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

So there we have it: @The Transhumanist created Portal:Wildlife of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but there was an existing page Portal:Indian wildlife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), created nearly 12 years earlier by Sushant gupta. (See why I call TTH the portalspammer?)

In other words, TTH's creation is not only automated junk built off a single navbox, but it duplicates a pre-existing template which TTH had edited before creating the duplicate.

And Mr long-speech @Cactus.man did not notice that:

1. The page he examined has a different title to the one he complained about
2. The page he examined is not tagged for this discussion
3. The page he examined is not included in the list for this discussion.

What was that word again, Cactus.man? Ah yes, sloppiness.

Multi-stage sloppiness, I'd say. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply @BrownHairedGirl. Please accept my humble apologies. For some bizarre reason I was checking the history of Portal:Indian wildlife [20], no idea how I got that mixed up. It's even sloppier of TTH duplicating an existing portal and not checking or dealing with that fact. As you say, he recreated a portal that he'd previously edited. So my mistake. I throw myself to the ground, prostrate with embarrasment. Everything I wrote pertains to that history, wrongly it transpires, and NOT to the history of the Portal you nominated, so I've struck the offending portions of my statement. I stand by the rest of my observations however.

Even better wishes to you. --Cactus.man ✍ 00:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cactus.man.

To avoid misleading anyone else, please could you {{collapse}} and/or strike the lengthy section based on your misreading? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've struck the relevant portions of my statement and corrected the incorrect Portal name accordingly. I'm not prepared to strike the entire statement or collapse it in it's entirety because there are some points that I think should stand. I have added a clarification to the end of the statement for subsequent readers which I hope satisfies you. --Cactus.man ✍ 01:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cactus.man, you posted by far the longest contribution to this MfD, based on an allegation turned out to be not only unfounded, but your own error. Readers should not be left to wade through the whole thing to find at the end that the whole basis of it is nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all - The vast majority are narrow topics that do not support a portal. But the following exceptions consider broad topics, Portal:Quantum mechanics, Portal:Game theory, Portal:Paleolithic, Portal:Communication, Portal:Electronic components, Portal:Automation, Portal:Pueblos, Portal:Prostitution, Portal:Aztecs, Portal:Simple living, Portal:Climate, Portal:Political ideologies, Portal:Irreligion, Portal:Green politics, Portal:Software engineering, Portal:Ancient Mesopotamia, Portal:Prehistory, Portal:Pathology, Portal:Bodybuilding, Portal:Meteorology, Portal:Meditation, Portal:History of technology and Portal:Jewellery, these can be discussed individually?Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:TRAINWRECK so since these can be recreated in about 10 seconds from a template and then built out properly, let modivated users do that, as is proposed. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Guilherme Burn, please re-read the nominator's rataionale at the top of this page. I know that it is a bit long, but I have bolded the key points.

The reason for this mass nomination is nothing to do with the scope of the topics. It is that these portal pages are automated spam which simply duplicates a navbox in a less usable form. Some of them may indeed be suitable topics for a properly-crated portal; but no topic befits from TTH's automated spam.

Note the final apara of the rationale Some of these portals cover narrow topics which should never have a portal. Others cover broad topics which might be capable of supporting a thoughtfully-designed and properly-curated portal which used a selected article list extending way beyond the navbox. So I propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

OK @BrownHairedGirl and Legacypac:. So I change my vote to Delete all, understanding that I can recreate some of these portals from the same source. In addition, it would be better a MfD with a smaller number of articles, to not repeat the same impasse that occurred in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 4: Provide for CSD criterion X3Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all, but allow recreation of properly built out portals (for reasonably broad topics) if editors have an actual interest in building one by hand. Kaldari (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to reduce scrolling[edit]

• Portal:Glass has DYK "... that living glass anemones can be dissected in the laboratory and then put back in an aquarium, where they will heal?" These things are designed to automatically have errors and were not checked. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's surely potential for a fun party game somewhere in here. Quick - without using Special:Whatlinkshere, which portal ask if you knew "... that Wolfgang Fortner composed the chamber opera In seinem Garten liebt Don Perlimplin Belisa after Lorca for the Schlosstheater Schwetzingen, where it opened the Festival in 1962?" How about "... that in 1948, Oreste Pucciani, champion of the "direct method" of language teaching, banned English from his classroom at UCLA?" —Cryptic 02:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Percentages will give you a real laugh - then go vote to delete it. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Would there be any value in draftifying the portals? That way, people who consider creating a portal that is actually a recreation can see that there is a draft and look at it to see what they want to achieve with the portal. The case I see for having these portals in draft space is that they provide an idea of what existing material can look like, a case against is that the editable content of these pages provides no useful basis for seeding the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose draftifying. Moving namespaces doesn't solve the problem of what to do with this stuff. A demo of something that in your words, provides no useful basis for seeding the article is not sufficient reason to keep. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose draftifying as the reason these portals are all up for deletion is because there's nothing of content, value or use on them. They are basically just navboxes with a bit of the main page attached. To the point of being able to use the draft to help make a new portal, the thing is though that all these portals follow the same template - there are all the same and have nothing unique in them towards the content they are a portal for. Thus, in my opinion, draftifying would serve no purpose. Meszzy² (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Meszzy2: Thanks for your input, just a point to clarify: draftifying is rather like deleting, in that the content has to go through the WP:AfC process (I think: can it apply to non-article content?) before recreation. I think this would count as doing something serious about the problem. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Chalst: I definitely see your view and hope I didn't come across as a bit impudent or anything. I think my issue with moving the portals to the draftspace would be that since there seems to be a consensus against these navbox type portals - we don't want them to come back in which case it would be wrong to provide these portals as models for constructing new ones. Additionally, I would say that using them for reference in creating new portals would also not be of any help, since there is nothing unique to any of the pages - they are all built off one auto-generated template and as such there's nothing specific to each portal that you could really reference in creating a new one. Also on a side note, I do believe that once a user is autoconfirmed they can simply move content in draftspace to mainspace themselves. Meszzy² (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dear User:Chalst, you missed the point. The 1300+ portals that are discussed here were created by keying {{subst:bpsp}} into a blank page and hitting [return]. No less no more. Thus your proposal amounts to overflow TTH userspace with 1300+ identical messages saying "if you want to recreate your junk portals --and be banned-- you only have to key in a 14 letters incantation". How useful ! Pldx1 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all - No added value beyond the more usable navboxes the portals are based on. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all - "Delete without prejudice to recreation in a more thoughtful manner by others.", as per pythoncoder. Since quantity not quality drove creation of these, quantity here should not make anyone shy of deleting these. Shenme (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - At WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Selection process, User:BrownHairedGirl has published the process she used to build her three lists of resp 1390, 36, 1308 portals. According to my own homework, using other methods, list 1 (the current list under discussion) and list 3 (the withdrawn set) were sound: clear and blatant cases of TTH-created junk portals, with no collateral damages. On the contrary, list 2 (cases excluded by precaution) is to be sorted again. There are genuine exceptions, but most of the 36 items are based on a single template, using 'Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow' rather than 'Transclude linked excerpts as random slideshow'. Perhaps User:Thryduulf could take the time to do due diligence on this set of 26 ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Many, many thanks for the scrutiny, @Pldx1. It's always helpful for something like this to be checked, whatever the result, and I am pleased to have confirmation that the main lists are sound. I hope that reassures both @Cactus.man and @Thryduulf.

  Thanks for drawing my attention to the pages which transclude Template:Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow. I still think that I was right to have removed them from this nomination, because they did not meet the precise criteria set out in the nomination. However, if there is consensus to delete this batch, then I will include those in another group nomination ... unless, of course, @Thryduulf has done due diligence and organised their deletion already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete these automatically generated portals do not meaningfully expand on the main article and aren't of sufficient quality. There is no point in draftifying them. Hut 8.5 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

2nd break for ease of continued discussion[edit]

• Delete all. Although I cannot imagine it, it's possible that one of these automated portals might serve some purpose. If a Portal advocate could provide one appropriate portal meeting BHG's conditions I might reconsider. I also think that automated portals, meeting the criteria except for not being created by TTH, should also be nominated for deletion, although there we could still assume good faith, as we cannot in regard TTH's creations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all: per Arthur Rubin's comment, I think portals whose scope doesn't meet WP:POG should be nominated, just not alongside TTH's creations. There is evidence that TTH wanted to create as many portals as possible in as short amount a time as possible. I'm going to assume good faith and assume TTH was unaware of WP:POG and just copy-pasted {{subst:bpsp}} into these thousands of pages, but that's all the effort that went into creating them so we shouldn't be wailing over the amount of effort we put into deleting them. Either way, these are recently-created and in contravention of WP:MEATBOT as a behavioural point and WP:POG as a content point. So yes, they should be deleted. SITH (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Your assumption would be incorrect. In an early MFD TTH explained that all portals were nominated for deletion but not deleted at WP:ENDPORTALS therefore all 1500 existing portals had been kept. He explained the WP:POG (which he extensively modified btw) were obsolete and non-binding. Any new portal like any old portal that was kept is now an acceptable scope. User:StraussInTheHouse Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware of the guideline-editing to suit behaviour. Yeah, that's not good faith. Still, my point stands that they should be deleted. SITH (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all- these automated portals are a lot of the sort of junk that brings WP into disrepute. My attention was drawn to them by Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera of which I am a member. I learned that a group of editors decided to "revitalize" WikiProject Portals. The original plan was to weed out and delete the hopeless portals and improve the ones on major topics that had been neglected. Well, it was a disaster. They developed a tool to fully automate portals, i.e. turning them into glorified navboxes with no human input as to the choice and quality of the articles and images and then we were notified that Portal:Felix Mendelssohn was up for deletion to which the same editor explained that This is an example of one of 2000 recently created automated portals that I wrote about above. It was not created and is not maintained by this project. Ditto WikiProject Classical Music. It is a good illustration of how these "instant portals" work. Basically, the "Selected article" section simply rotates those listed in Template:Felix Mendelssohn (regardless of quality). The "Selected picture" simply rotates all the images in the article Felix Mendelssohn (regardless of quality). The "Did you know" section mines the list of Main page DYKs looking for the word "Mendelssohn". Fortunately, the name is so unique that the DYKs will probably all be relevant. But problems have occurred in other automated portals such as Portal:Bears where you get DYKs like "...that American surgeon Dallas B. Phemister created a bone grafting technique which now bears his name?"... Portal:Spiders includes DYKs on Spider monkeys, Spider ants, and a flowering plant known as the long-stalk spiderhead. You get my drift. [22] I can't believe there is even any debate about it, these recently created automated portals are total trash and must be thrown out ASAP, every one of them.Smeat75 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all. I'm admittedly a little new to the drama surrounding portals but it seems that in general, they are not very effective at their supposed job. When portals as a whole are on the ropes like this, and I see a big list of automatically generated portals, I get suspicious immediately. It seems to me like this is the sort of trash which makes portals so disliked by some editors. I have to say, I'm ordinarily very inclusive. I love big pages, I love lots of content, and I have a very broad view of what belongs on Wikipedia. That said, I really don't think that these belong. If anyone can cite an individual example of a good portal(s) in the list, I will be happy to support removing it from the list. As far as I'm concerned, this needs to be opt-out. If you really believe that one of these portals is important, say something now or let it walk the plank with the rest. Prometheus720 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think it might have been better to break these up into smaller batches (maybe ~200 each). Not that the eventual fate of most of the pages listed would change, but it would make processing and reviewing them for outliers easier. ~1300 pages is quite a large collection that can lead to manifesting false positive/negative errors in the listings, which will not be easy to check for. I trust AWB a lot but it can't accommodate every scenario. That being said, I agree in principle that a portal based solely on a single navbox - and nothing else - should be deleted unless some extra TLC was put into making it worthwhile to keep. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 01:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:University of Hull[edit]

Portal:University of Hull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Insufficiant scope with only about 15 pages within Category:University of Hull. The list of subtopics is misleading because it actually has a number of piped links to the main university page (both campuses are piped as is the business school) and a one residence hall page covers many of the links. I don't consider people associated with the university to be within the scope, as it is a tracking category but none of those bios are about the university. A mass created nav box based portal a minute special. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - mass created portal with too narrow scope to justify a portal. Meszzy² (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-07T20:26:17Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Scope is far too narrow. Note that while there are about 15 pages in scope, several of them are only stubs (e.g. Ferens Chair in Philosophy, Thwaite Hall, Brynmor Jones Library) and hence will not be displayed in the portal's selected article list.

This is simply drive-by spam created by the prolific (and now topic-banned) portalspammer @The Transhumanist simply by entering {{subst:quick portal}} and saving. Junk like this should be eligible for speedy-deletion.

Note that this deletion should not be taken in any way as a comment on the nature or standing of the university. The problem is simply that this portal as currently constructed is far too narrow, and merely replicates in a more bulky format the navbox Template:Portal:University of Hull. This the portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:

• • the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time.
  • the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:

• both the topic navbox and any related navboxes
• A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

Wikipedia simply does not have extensive coverage of every single university. Portals exist to provide navigation across broad scope topics, and only in very rare cases is there enough coverage to require a portal. Narrow-topic, automated spam portals such a this are simply a waste of readers' time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Geert Wilders[edit]

Portal:Geert Wilders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal. He is/was a party leader never Prime Minister. Page contains negative info without sources, which is a BLP problem. Category:Geert Wilders contains less than 20 pages. Islam is a featured article (seriously...) Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - While I concur with the argument that this should be deleted as a single-person portal, the stronger argument is that its creator is a banned editor, and was banned primarily for anti-Islamic soapboxing, and the subject of this portal is an anti-Islamic politician. This is not G5 because the editor had not been banned at the time of creation of this portal, but creating things like this portal is what got the editor banned. We don't need any portals that were created in order to Promote Great Wrongs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2012-07-28T19:27:47Z by User:JonFlaune. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

All creators are notified on their talkpages like this [23]. Legacypac (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete not nearly broad enough scope for a portal per WP:POG, Category:Geert Wilders has 9 articles in it. Hut 8.5 21:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Coca-Cola[edit]

Portal:Coca-Cola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:The Coca-Cola Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Delete per the logic of MfD/P:BK. Single company portals are not always great, and these generally fall under Portal:Soft drinks, Portal:Drinking establishments, and Portal:Companies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• also products covered by Portal:Drinks Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all per Portal:Starbucks and other company nominations. What made TTH thinks creating a page for both the company and its identically named product, on the same day even, was a great idea? Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete the first two. Have not looked at the third (and won't until I finish a Diet Coke) (but the fact that I am drinking what is described by the portals does not mean that the portals are needed). Both of the Coke portals fall within other portals, but am not !voting to keep or delete the superset portals at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-10-21T08:37:26Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to be changed Pldx1 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-21T08:37:26Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Coca-Cola

- An automated portal, created 2018-10-21T08:34:57Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:The Coca-Cola Company

- An automated portal, created 2019-02-03T18:57:15Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:PepsiCo

Pldx1 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:August Derleth[edit]

Portal:August Derleth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal previous erroniously kept at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:August Derleth. Fails WP:POG with only 17 articles with zero articles outside stuff he wrote and there seems to be no category for him, but three categories for his works. The nav box andarticle is the best way to explore his works. A list of his works article could be done as well. . Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Despite the last discussion I don't see how this could be anymore useful than the main article (August Derleth). This portals contents are basically just the lead of the main article and Template:August Derleth, which is already on the main article. No different from all the other mass created portals... Meszzy² (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - No improvement over the last, although I should point out that there are more than 17 articles linked (not sure where the number came from).--Auric talk 11:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Me either, I got it off the last MFD statement but now I've adjusted the nomination. Ping User:BrownHairedGirl as she looked at this before Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I disagree with the erroneous statement that the portal was erroniously kept, but this portal was controversial in September 2018 and is still not needed, and was kept partly because some editors were waiting for a rework of the portal guidelines. (I missed the earlier deletion debate because I was ill.)Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-27T00:08:37Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Walmart[edit]

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

Walmart is a large company but its not a broad subject and this mass created portal provides no help in actually navigating Walmart articles as the Walmart template already appears at the end of Walmart articles. I don't see how this portal is any more useful than the main Walmart article. Meszzy² (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. This is no better than Portal:Kroger or Portal:Albertsons also nominated for deletion. Individual companies don't need portals. Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-04T18:47:00Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Single-company portals are a bad idea, especially for a company that has a class of people who hate it, in which case the portal will be divisive between promotion and criticism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TISM[edit]

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

Mass created portal about a band - seems too specific to pass WP:POG. Meszzy² (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete too narrow scope Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-01-07T12:57:24Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Single-band portals are also too narrow a topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Netbooks[edit]

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

Unnecessary TTH creation about a type of laptop - only has 26 laptop models in its scope. Meszzy² (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete worse than a single company portal, a single product line. Legacypac (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2018-09-08T01:11:47Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Single-product line portals are not necessary, and raise questions about Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. They also have other disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Monroe, Louisiana[edit]

Portal:Monroe, Louisiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Small city around 50,000. Much of the lead is about an argument as to how many people live here. Mass created and limited scope. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - mass creation that isn't useful. Meszzy² (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2018-08-23T02:41:26Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Another case where the ambiguity of the name should indicate that it isn't worth a portal. There are approximately 30 towns named Monroe in the United States, as well as in Canada and Ireland, as well as James Monroe and Marilyn Monroe. On hearing Monroe, most people will think either of the President or the actress. No reason why a portal is needed. Last Monday a disambiguation portal might have been a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Suffolk, Virginia[edit]

Portal:Suffolk, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mass created for city of 90,237 people. Only pages in its scope are pages for 7 neighbourhoods and 2 boroughs. Meszzy² (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per many precidents Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2018-08-24T02:32:27Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Not nearly as ambiguous as some ambiguous portals. Only 5 municipalities in the United States and 3 in the United Kingdom including a historical county. We still don't need a portal for every county and town in the United States. As an independent city in Virginia, Suffolk is a county-equivalent, and county portals were mass-deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Wayanad[edit]

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

A stray Indian District article that was missed when we deleted 30 of them at once. It was not categorized properly and did not have "district" in the title. Housekeeping after the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals . Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Meszzy² (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-05T18:47:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Yet another third-level subdivision. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kansas City Spurs[edit]

Portal:Kansas City Spurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Defunct sports team lasted 5 seasons under two names in two cities. 24 pages in Category:Kansas City Spurs nearly all players. Feature article Soldier_Field is not heavy on Spurs content. Another feature article Kansas City is not going to have much about the Spurs either. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - not useful and unnecessary mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-05T19:39:05Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 11:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete not portal-worthy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sound sculptures[edit]

Portal:Sound sculptures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

17 pages in Category:Sound sculptures Fails WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - another unnecessary and not at all useful mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-05T22:01:21Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Obviously only created (and not maintained since) in order to create a portal, during a wave of reckless portal creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Kroger and Portal:Albertsons[edit]

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

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

Kroger is another company page created in the wave of portal about anything with a nav box [24]. They got this down to a portal a minute (including searching for pages) and 10 seconds to make the page. They created more pages in 9 days than were created all year for many years.

About forty pages in Category:Kroger including some random shooting in a Kroger store, various store brands Kroger operates, may no longer exist or divested. A few pages about people associated with Kroger. Just two images from the article on the portal. There is just no value in this repackaging of the nav box and article.

In the interest of competitive fairness I've bundled their biggest competitor created by the same editor under the same conditions with the same results. Legacypac (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-07T01:46:55Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Walmart Legacypac (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Pichilemu[edit]

Portal:Pichilemu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all subpages

Very small town in Chile of 13,000 people. Portal abandoned with the news section being dated from 2010-2012 but just shows the month and day without the year so it looks current. The selected bio for me is a guy who got 66 votes and less than 1% in an election. He does not actually have an article but read more links to a Costa Rican ball player. Check out the other inappropriate static bios here Portal:Pichilemu/Selected_biography Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Courtesy ping: portal created 2010-08-13T02:19:47Z by User:Diego Grez-Cañete. Pldx1 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Creator is blocked but was notified on his talkpage. Further investigation found a huge walled garden of pages around this 13,000 person town including a bio for nearly every mayor in it's history which is a big WP:NPOL failure. Someone is passionate about their little town to the point of ignoring our notability guidelines, but that is cleanup for another board. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - historic portal. The beach of Punta de Lobos, about 200 km south of Valparaiso, is well-known internationally for being a good place for surfing and the practice of kiteboarding. Its waves vary between two and three meters high, allowing surfers of different skill levels to select their waves. The town of Punta de Lobos is characterized by its fine gray sand, and is surrounded by cliffs which are 50 metres high. Its odd rocks (Rocas de Punta de Lobos) are frequented by sea-lions. Lets keep a place for the sea-lions to stay, at least during the current cleaning process. Pldx1 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete for various reasons, including that the creating user has been banned for general disruption. Too narrow a topic to be worth keeping even if another editor will maintain. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:New York roads[edit]

Portal:New York roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal that has seen no real work on it since 2012. The associated WikiProject died years ago and was redirected into WikiProject US Roads. The selected article has been dead for years [25] In the News is from 2016 (so not news). There are no subcategories lists because changes were made to the category structure of roads and no one is watching the portal to catch the effects. Portal:U.S. roads and other portals like Portal:Transportation cover the scope here so no value in keeping something that no one wants to maintain. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchazenia: --Rschen7754 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Courtesy ping: portal created 2010-03-31T02:35:43Z by User:Juliancolton. Pldx1 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as abandoned unless someone is willing to maintain this one. User:Juliancolton does still occasionally edit, but not very often. By the way, User:Pldx1, it is not necessary to courtesy-ping portal creators. Legacypac and the other editors who are nominating portals for deletion use Twinkle, and it normally does figure out correctly who was the creator of a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - IMO, old portals are to be treated specifically. That is the reason why I underline when and by whom they were created. Pldx1 (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• If we could, I would like to allow for User:Mitchazenia to have the ability to respond, as another primary New York road editor. --Rschen7754 18:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comments there is a Portal on US Roads, but only one (that I've seen) other State level roads at Portal:Washington roads and I should probably have bundled that in. If this goes delete I'll nominate it for deletion as well. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Why? There's nothing broken with it. Same with Portal:California roads. --Rschen7754 00:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Also Portal:Maryland roads and Portal:Michigan highways. --Rschen7754 01:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's be honest, portals are purposeless at this point. They made sense 10 years ago. They don't now. As the major contributor to this, I have no problem with it going away. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 02:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Band Portals from update 29[edit]

Portal:Australian Crawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Portal:The Living End (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:AKB48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

previously deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:AKB48

Portal:Fall Out Boy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single band portals. Created in 10 seconds. [26] and create log at [27] These add no value to the topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - more unnecessary and not at all useful mass created portals. Meszzy² (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-11T06:49:21Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Not really needed or valuable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 6, 2019[edit]

Portal:Mondelez International[edit]

Portal:Mondelez International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single company portal again. If you've never heard the name, it is because they don't sell any products under this name. There is some scope because of all the top brands with pages, but this automated portal is not a good starting point for a complex topic with multiple mergers and divestitures in it's history. One of the selected articles is a discontinued chocolate. There is only one selected image and it says "Kraft Foods in England" so it is unclear if this factory even belongs to Mondelez. In the article the image is used in context in a section about the company when it was called Kraft, but divorced from the context it becomes confusing. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another unnecessary and not useful mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-07T00:11:17Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need mass-created portals, and we don't need portals about companies that no one has heard of. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Airbus[edit]

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

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

Portal:Bombardier Aerospace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Fairchild Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single company portal. Portal:Companies already exists. You can quickly tap selected images and articles to get a version of the portal with 4 indentical Airbus logos displayed. Scope is narrow at about 23 pages which includes wholly owned subs, divisions, JVs and people associated with the company at some point. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Bombardier is also a single company portal, which is strike one. Only 13 product pages plus a few assorted other pages = too narrow which is strike two. Part of a mass creation of portals where ever a nav box can be found to harvest = strike 3.

Plus an intro that just says "Bombardier Aerospace (French: Bombardier Aéronautique) is a division of Bombardier Inc. It is headquartered in Dorval, Quebec, Canada.". Which is hardly very informative for the reader who needs and wants to know more than this. The aricle presents all the info about this company and its products much better on a single page with nice infobox.

• Delete - As the nominator says, too narrow a focus, created recklessly. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another unnecessary and not useful mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – Too narrow of a subject for a portal. It already has its navbox, {{Airbus}}, and that seems adequate. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-01-21T13:22:52Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This portal was created by a blocked sockpuppet. The other arguments for deletion are also valid. Not G5 because none of the accounts had been blocked at the time of portal creation. We need to ensure that other portals created by these socks are also washed with sodium hypochlorite. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Another aircraft manufacturer portal added, created at same time by same banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Boeing too. Sorry I missed Boeing. Also bundling the number three aircraft manufacturer previously nominated for deletion on April 2 in the interest of reducing the number of open MfDs. The only discussion it had was Robert voting to delete. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fairchild is tagged under the big bundle but I've included it for completeness here Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Dow Chemical Company[edit]

Portal:Dow Chemical Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single company TTH special based off a nav box. Because portals don't show hatnotes the poor reader can't know that Dow Inc. is the new incarnation of this business. Associated category has about 35 pages so while passing the minimum, it is not a very broad topic. No Wikiproject for Dow. Some random images without much context. Selected article for include bios of James A. Bell (most associated with Boeing) and Jacqueline Barton neither of which mention Dow in the supplied paragraphs. The subtopics show them as company directors, but remember this company does not exist in the same form now. Individual companies don't need portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another unnecessary and not useful mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2018-10-23T06:06:53Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - And the purpose of this portal was ... ? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ComfortDelGro[edit]

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

Single company portal with about 21 pages on subsidiaries. Not a suitable portal topic. Lacks a wikiproject. Barely scrapes by on number of articles and hardly a well known name (it's operating unit names would be well known in the areas they operate). A TTH portal every few seconds special because it has a nav box Legacypac (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another unnecessary and not useful mass created portal. Meszzy² (talk) 07:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal, created 2019-02-04T09:44:36Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Even more useless than most of the mass-created portals. Apparently created just to satisfy the February 2019 quota. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Not useful. robertsky (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Theosophy[edit]

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

Portal:Theosophy/WikiProjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all other subpages

This is confusing. There are two versions of this religion Theosophy (Blavatskian) and Theosophy (Boehmian). The wikiquote more link leads to Buddhism [28]. The selected article is a static outdated BIO with no references and there is only one selected bio. Portal project people have made the usual blanket "maintenance" edits but this has existed as a poor substitute for the article on the topic, but with an (undabbed title), for 4 years. No one has improved the page for a long time. WikiProject:Theosophy does not exist and this is not maintained by WikiProject:Religion Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2015-01-24T22:55:13Z by User:Trinity9538. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Not mass-created, but created by an inactive user. The existence of two schools of thought both known as theosophy is not a negative factor, because a properly maintained portal could distinguish them, but this is not a properly maintained portal. Legacypac's other arguments are valid, that this portal is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It isn't necessary to !vote on the subpage because deletion of the parent page implies deletion of the subpages via G8. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Arijit Singh[edit]

Portal:Arijit Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal, a BLP without references. Outside the identical titled mainspace page, scope includes only List of awards and nominations received by Arijit Singh and 38 songs. The nav box this is harvested from provides all those links already, without the maintenance challanges of these maintenance free content scraping portals. Of course you get to see the same image twice, and one other to scroll to also shown on the article itself. Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another mass created portal with no real use. Meszzy² (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2015-03-06T11:26:39Z by User:Shaphiu. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This portal was not mass-created, but it appears that its creator is no longer active. This is a single-person portal. Neutral if a maintainer can be found. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It was modified by the mass creation team to (it appears) function like a mass creation portal. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Aldous Huxley[edit]

Portal:Aldous Huxley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal. Prolific author but no scope outside of his works and works derived from those works. Handled just fine in the main article with it's navbox (which this portal harvests) and pages otherwise linked from the article. Legacypac (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-08-26T23:56:09Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This one, unlike Howard, is part of the wave of reckless creation. No indication that it will be maintained. Single-person portals are not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Robert E. Howard[edit]

Portal:Robert E. Howard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) plus all subpages

One of the better constructed single individual portals, but the one has issues that show lack of maintenance. Portal:Robert_E._Howard/Selected_image contains both redlinks and selections with no images.

Page 2 contains this "This section of The Robert E. Howard Portal contains information about Robert E. Howard. This information covers Robert E. Howard articles on Wikipedia, additional resources related to Robert E. Howard and the portal itself (with directions to facilitate its maintenance)." which belongs at WP:YOUDONTSAY User:EEng

Authors works are best explored from the authors mainspace page. We have deleted (I believe) every portal about a single person brought to MfD this year. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results so this fails the scope requirements of WP:POG as clarified by the discussions here. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see a single valid reason to delete. Cleanup is needed, but that is easily handled. I'm not sure why the Page 2 statement should be moved to the linked page, as it adds a nice wry touch to the portal.--Auric talk 12:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Courtesy ping: portal created 2009-01-22T17:59:38Z by User:AdamBMorgan. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete at this time unless someone will agree to be the maintainer of the portal. Keep if someone agrees to maintain. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I can easily do that. Done.--Auric talk 12:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Monarchies[edit]

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

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

Portal:Monarchies is a mass creation automated junk portal by User:The Transhumanist and should be deleted on that basis. TTH also extensively edited the other portal [29] proving one person can not manage thousands of portals very well. Normally a redirect would solve this duplicate creation, but...

Portal:Monarchy has existed for over 10 years and is ridiculously out of date. It's been categorized in Category:Portals needing attention since June 2018 [30] . The Web Resources section is a redlink, but the real problems are on Portal:Monarchy/Monarchies today where the Ruler of Malaysia is two years out of date, and most of the Governor Generals of Commonwealth realms are now out of date. I can't quite figure out how to edit the page (hard to edit is another problem with portals) but I found one of the first linked people has been out of office since 2014 so overall the page is at least 5 years out of date and the traffic is so low it took 4 years before some noticed enough to apply a cleanup category. Lucky for the page Kings and Queens don't change that often, but holding this info in a portal is a disaster. In mainspace this page would be updated within days of a change of any officeholder listed, and for the rulers likely within minutes.

Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Monarchies as duplicating Monarchy, and Monarchy as not maintained. But why was Portal:Monarchies created? The answer to this question may determine whether I !vote Delete 97% of the time or 99.7% of the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete both with same rationale as Robert. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-09-17T08:38:07Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cheese dishes[edit]

Portal:Cheese dishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An automated portal with many of the automated portal issues and several others

1. Automatic DYK harvesting: DYKs 1, 2, and 3 are about cheese making not cheese dishes. DKY 4 is "... that the Python Package Index is also known as the Cheese Shop, a reference to the Monty Python sketch?" where the Python target does not even use the word cheese. Must be an old DYK?
2. Poor quality articles in scope. Many of the associated articles are stubs or poorly referenced. 3/4 of pages in Category:Cheese soups are stubs. Featured articke Poulet au fromage has an orange notice on it. Featured image Moretum is a stub and so on. Many food articles are permastubs.
3. Based on List of cheese dishes and a coresponding nav box. I don't believe I've ever seen a portal based on a list topic. The list is a much better way to explore the topic anyway.
4. This is very close in scope to (also automated) Portal:Cheese since the only uses for cheese are feeding humans and mice. Cheese dishes is immediately under Cheese in the category tree. Several of the auto harvested DYKs are the same. List of cheese dishes is a featured article at Portal:Cheese etc. If we need portals at all, a better course of action would be for Portal Project people to collaborate to build a proporly curated portal around Cheese, including culinary uses, which features high quality content, instead of this automated repackaging of navboxes.

Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Cheese can be fed to other species besides humans and mice, but that is irrelevant. Why do we need two overlapping portals? When I see overlapping portals that were created in 2018 or early 2019, my inclination is not to merge or redirect but to delete all. Delete this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Portal:Cheese (or redirect if Portal:Cheese contains everything in Portal:Cheese dishes). List article as introduction? Seriously?? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-10-23T14:11:59Z, only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Portal:Cheese, we don't need two cheese portals.Catfurball (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:X-ray astronomy[edit]

Portal:X-ray astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Not sufficiently broad subject area, as is required by the WP:POG guideline; more than adequately covered by Portal:Astronomy. Also, like nearly all non-maintained portals, has the usual smattering of technical bugs, e,g,: the "selected image" has no image. Strong evidence this is a personal project. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. mikeu ^talk 13:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete because this is so close in scope to Portal:Astronomy. On the negative side the topics at the bottom (hosted on a subpage) borders on deceptive. Piping links is generally ok, but not when you pipe just to blout up the topics. I removed 6 links to the same history page [31] piped by country but the actual page is not (at least in 2019) organized by country. Other links are also inappropriately piped like history of optics as "history of X-ray optics" and so on. Others are very broad topics distantly related topics like science funding, Nobel Prize and so on that likely don't even mention X-ray astronomy.

On the positive side the portal creator from back in 2010 has been making intelligent maintenance edits as late as Dec 2018 (maybe more recently on subpages) which is very unusual for portals. The portal is not an automated "self maintaining" driveby creation. It has lots of cool images and between the many objects in outspace to look at and the many observatories and sats humans buit to look at them, there are quite a few articles. So this is not the highest priority portal to trim. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Should not sink with the TTH overflow. After the required cleaning, we will have a better perspective about this specific one. Pldx1 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I went through the pictures per above for "selected image" and found a number deleted by commons delinker, one of which is now back on commons. Some are now fair use images on Wikiversity so here I'm including a commons image, e.g., infrared and describing the X-ray image on Wikiversity with a link which I hope is okay for the user to compare. In one instance the X-ray image is PD but it was superimposed on an optical image which is fair use with permission. I will look at the pipes(?) to see what is being referred to. Automating this portal so far has proven difficult. --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Automation has proven to be a disaster full of automatic errors. The cleanup of that mess is causing all portals to be examined closely. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI - I'm also the maintainer for Portal:Astronomy so I'd be happy to have suggestions to better broaden X-ray astronomy from Astronomy per the portals. Astronomy on Wikiversity is much broader than here per my focus on radiation astronomy which is more astrophysics based than conventional visual or optical astronomy. Comments and criticisms welcome! --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Just another FYI - I maintain Portal:Jupiter too. --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question for User:Marshallsumter - Why do we need two portals, one of which covers a proper subset of another? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Of the methods of astronomy, X-ray is second in popularity on Wikipedia only to radio (which does not have its own portal). None of the other methods come close in popularity even visible (optical). The astronomy article is 14x as popular as its portal, but the X-ray astronomy article is only 9x the popularity of its portal. This suggests that perhaps the more focused X-ray astronomy portal has better readership appeal (visual?) than can be put into the article. Of the other proper subset portals X-ray astronomy is last in popularity just behind Space. The most popular subset portal, not counting Spaceflight, is Solar System at 6x the popularity of X-ray astronomy. But, the Solar System article is 254x the popularity of its portal. So for handling the more technical subjects, the other proper subset portals appear to be falling way short of what hopefully the X-ray astronomy portal is succeeding at. --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I question the inclusion of Wikiversity:Astronomy, Wikiversity:Astrophysics, and Wikiversity:Radiation astronomy as "related portals." Are other cross-wiki projects linked to like this? It seems a bit irregular to me. The main topic page for radiation astronomy at en-wv is one that we've had to repeatedly move to draft namespace.[32]

I noticed at Portal:Astronomy there is a wikiversity link which is piped to a highly deceptive "read more" message.[33] Recent contributions at these two portals appear to be an overzealous attempt to promote a personal project. (too put it mildly) Please see

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter_disrupting_Wikipedia_for_"research"_purposes.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter Incident Article Fix-up Coordination Page

for background on editing of radiation and astronomy related topics. --mikeu ^talk 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete/redirect Portal:Astronomy is more than sufficient. Actually I need a bit more time to think about this one. This isn't a TTH portal after all, and it IS actually maintained and curated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tensors[edit]

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

Nav box harvesting portal by TTH. The only image is repeated, and there is a weird " Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle \mathbf{T}^{(\mathbf{v)} " error suggesting the portal was not reviewed after publishing. If you check the selected articles you can display a third version of almost the same graphic on the page at once. Selected articles like Hermann Günther Grassmann and Albert Einstein don't seem very in scope.

I asked about these math portals at WikiProject math and this one was called hyper specific. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Did You Know that the creating script was so far from artificial intelligence that it used Euclid, the guy who was figuring all computations, to illustrate a topic about how to compute all figures ? By the way, the sentence The order (also degree or rank) of a tensor is thus the sum of the orders of its arguments plus the order of the resulting tensor would have been detected as rather strange by anyone having ever encountered a tensor. Pldx1 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. One can also add: Did You Know that tensor where is Maxwell's stress tensor, is Poynting's vector and is the energy density... is the energy-impulsion tensor of the electromagnetic field. If you don't know why Albert Einstein could be involved here, better ask for help than reading a random collection of snippets. Pldx1 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - We certainly don't need a portal for anything that is extremely useful after profound understanding but has the capability to baffle. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:John Williams[edit]

Portal:John Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal that is inferior to John Williams article. All the photos are from his article. All his works are linked from his article plus linked from the navbox this portal is based on. The only scope is here is the roughly 26 soundtracks he produced. The portal says nothing at all about his numerous major awards. A portal a minute job that does a disservice to the subject and robs the reader of valuable info about an accomplished composer. Legacypac (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An idea that I should have thought of on Monday would be to have a disambiguation portal for all of the John Williams es. But today is 6 April, so the issue is the merits of this portal, which are nil. This portal was obviously created because creating portals was fun. Actually, it was just as likely because of an idea, contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, that portals are technically neat and provide some capability beyond maintaining knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:BROOKLYN FROST[edit]

Draft:BROOKLYN FROST (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would have gone with {{db-notwebhost}} if this was in userspace. Wikipedia is not a place to host "a letter to your mum". Also WP:PROMO, especially with the links, but I don't think it's a G11. I'd suggest the article creator make a blog using wordpress or something if they want to publish this sort of stuff. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete sigh CoolSkittle (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTBLOG/WP:NOTWEBHOST. No redeeming value in having WP be the host of this content.Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - It was rejected at about the same time as tagged for deletion, and rejection is sufficient, but the nomination to delete was also reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete there is enough issues with this including the many social media links (a type of advertising and SEO link building) that this deserves deletion now by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTLETTERTOMOM —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Backup guitar[edit]

Draft:Backup guitar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No legitimate content. Gooner2004 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete created today but I can't see how this can be more than a bad definition. A guitar is a guitar regardless of how it is used. Maybe a test edit? Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – it's a legitimate topic. We have an article on backup vocals, so why not guitar? Or maybe it could be a redirect to rhythm guitar, which is the counterpart to lead guitar. The possibilities are endless. Bradv🍁 02:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Doesn't need deleting at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – In part per Bradv, and also because the user just began editing today (6 April 2019), so the nomination goes against the grain of WP:BITE. Perhaps allow the user time to expand the draft, and if they don't, it can then be deleted via WP:G13. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Open to alternatives such as redirecting/merging or even expanding with sourced content that shows that this is a notable topic. Otherwise this is nothing but a neologisim. Hasteur (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to Rhythm guitar. If the intent is to mention backup instruments in case the primary one breaks, then it doesn't need its own article, like backup tennis racquet. But if it's to assign roles in bands for guitar players then rhythm is the closest to that. Otherwise, add Backup band to the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Udaipur[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Udaipur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single city Wikiproject that is under a state and national level project. Basically one editor did the substantive work to put this together but they have been blocked for sockpuppetry. The talkpage shows the project progressed so little they were not even sure it was alive yet. [34] Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as apparent work only of a blocked editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 5, 2019[edit]

Portal:Lorde[edit]

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

Single performer portal classed as Incomplete [35]] since October 2018. Everything you need to know about this singer is at Lorde already, with a better presentation. Previous version deleted here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lorde Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

· Strong 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.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 23:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Says the person who pushed the create page button. There are many MfD nominations because a whole lot of unneeded/junk/broken/guideline failing portals were created by you and your friends. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete: How in the heck does this pass WP:POG? Lorde is a single artist—that isn't broad in the slightest. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 01:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Like too many of the portals that I have viewed on individual (female) artists, this looks like JAPF (Just Another Pretty Face), and that isn't a reason for portal. An image is a necessary and not a sufficient condition for a portal. Note that the likelihood of maintaining this portal was already considered at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lorde. Same result should apply again. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Too specific—Lorde has all the information. The fake portal adds nothing other than a maintenance problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• I believe we have deleted every single person portal brought to MFD this year (that has closed). See User:Legacypac/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:POG as there's enough content about her to create a portal on. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

POG says "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.". DexDor ^(talk) 07:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - single-person portals are a recipe for editors wanting to (attempt to) create a portal for their favorite artist. There's also the issue that who's going to maintain such a portal when the artist is no longer prominent. Best to limit portals to topics (e.g. music). DexDor ^(talk) 07:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - per DexDor. @Legacypac:, could a discussion for all 'single-person portals' be open? There is no difference from this portal to Portal: Madonna (entertainer) for example.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been building Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results which is a version of the MFD archives minus all the non-portal stuff. We could select all the single person portals from that to justify a mass nomination of the remaining single person portals [[User:Guilherme Burn. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Legacypac:Analyzing portals like Portal: Rihanna, Portal: Madonna and Portal: Lady Gaga we realize that even superstars do not support a portal. The last real addition of content were about five years ago.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

287 pageviews (30 days) for Portal:Madonna (entertainer) compared to 310,640 pageviews (30 days) on Madonna (entertainer). No wonder the portal is way out of date. When is the last time an editor looked at the portal? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korean Mythology[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Korean Mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single-user WikiProject that was created in 2012 and then swiftly abandoned. User in question has been inactive since 2015 and no-one has bothered with it since I redirected it three years ago. No historical value. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stillborn project Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as stillborn project. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Fast Food Portals[edit]

Portal:McDonald's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Wendy's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

These mass created automated portals should also be deleted the same as Portal:Starbucks and Portal:Burger King and the way Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Subway (restaurant) is going. Portal:Fast food, Portal:Deep frying, Portal:Hamburgers and Portal:Companies should cover these chains. Legacypac (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Um, okay. You're so hellbent on pushing this agenda that you can no longer be bothered to offer a rationale? Considering how widespread McDonald's is across the world, this is an easy leaning keep. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You voted while I was assembling the bundle and inserting all the links and rational. Feel free to reassess now User:RadioKAOS Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. We are not supposed to provide for free another corporate advertising web page. Pldx1 (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep- This is an unfair nomination. This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed these portal and believe it passes WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 00:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What is unfair about my handcrafted nomination of pages you started? More time, effort and thought went into building this MFD then went into the one click wonder pages it seeks to delete. Legacypac (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per precedent of Portal:Burger King; topic is too narrow. The other portals Legacypac mentioned are good enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep McDonald's portal, delete others. Given the massive international popularity of McDonald's and the number of McDonald's-specific articles we have, there is very, very clearly enough scope for the McDonald's portal. Lepricavark (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Portal:McDonald's – Passes WP:POG with a diverse and large amount of content available on Wikipedia about the topic (e.g. Category:McDonald's), and for having a sufficiently broad topical scope. After all, it's the largest restaurant chain in the world by revenue, and has restaurants in over 100 countries. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Struck my !vote above. Neutral at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. McDonald's isn't a broad subject; fast food may be (and there is Portal:Fast food - incidentally that lists about 90 related portals, but doesn't include McDonald's). Portals for specific companies (or people, for that matter) are generally a bad idea as they are likely to lead to continual battles as editors argue that their favorite brand "deserves" a portal. DexDor ^(talk) 18:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - McDonald's may be a large company but it is by no means a broad subject. A single company is just too narrow a topic for a portal to actually be useful and meaningful. Portals are supposed to help navigate very broad subjects - McDonald's doesn't need it - and these mass created portals are hardly helpful at all even if it needed one. Meszzy² (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete 3 more useless portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Binghamton, New York[edit]

Portal:Binghamton, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

47,000 person town. Portal created in less than a minute because it has a nav box. Pages in the nav box include topics outside the scope which leads to selected articles of wide geographic scope like Upstate New York, Southern Tier, and nearby towns Johnson City, New York and Port Dickinson, New York, and other inappropriate inclusions. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal is only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC).
  Vmanjr volunteered to maintain it. Pldx1 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Binghamton is the principle city of a 250,000-resident metro area (191st in the US). Nearby towns fall into the metro area, and serve as suburbs to the city, so they are relevant to include in the portal (as most other portals for U.S. cities do). Yes, the portal is just an automated shell now, but it really needs curation and non-automated content more than anything. I'm happy to volunteer to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmanjr (talk • contribs) 01:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• We have yet to keep a city of this size and lots of cities have been nominated this year. See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal_MFD_Results Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep – Since Vmanjr has generously volunteered to improve the portal, let's now allow them time to do so. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep for now as maintained. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Melrose, Massachusetts[edit]

Portal:Melrose, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

27,000 person town in Metro Boston covered by Portal:Boston Image of city hall repeated on the page. Don't be fooled by the General Information list of subtopics, most are redirects to sections of the town's article. Bios of people from a place are not about the place and should not count toward portal article scope, but they are featured articles. One of the featured articles is the same as the Introduction so you can actually see three copies of the city hall image at once on one page. It took me more thought to nominate this then went into making the portal. Legacypac (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete definitely not significant enough for a portal. Lepricavark (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - There are more than 20 places named Melrose scattered over the Eastern Hemisphere, Western Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, and Southern Hemisphere. None of them need portals. On Monday, converting the disambiguation page into a portal would have been an interesting idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget Melrose Place which also does not need a portal. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete anything which uses sections as general "articles" —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Makati[edit]

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

Mass creation by TTH with a main article that reproduces in the portal as mangled garbage.

"'Makati, (/məˈkɑːti/ mə-KAH-tee Tagalog pronunciation: [maˈkati]), officially the ', (Tagalog: Lungsod ng Makati), or simply known as Makati City, is a class [[of the Philippines]] in , ."

No idea what part of his script is causing that error, but if he had even glanced at the pages he created he would see this problem on the first line.

Featured article for me is Philippines. City is just part of Metro Manila covered by 2010 created Portal:Manila which could itself use some work. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I partly agree with User:Pldx1, but this is manual deletion of an automated portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Huntington, West Virginia[edit]

Portal:Huntington, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal lacks an info box so you can't see this city only has 47,079 people and is the 773rd largest in the US. Mass created because it has a Nav Box, but the lack of details makes it inferior to the Orange tagged article on Huntington, West Virginia Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - No obvious reason for this portal. There are more than 30 towns named Huntington scattered around the United Kingdom, United States, and New Zealand, and this is not the largest of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Goodyear, Arizona[edit]

Portal:Goodyear, Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

3 related articles plus ones on specific schools = no scope worth discussing. A TTH rapid creation. Would fall under a metro area portal but that was moved to cover the whole state. See history [36] of Portal:Phoenix,_Arizona Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - There is only one town of Goodyear in the United States, but it still doesn't need a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency)[edit]

Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Topic has been deleted at an AfD, MfD, SALTED and even speedy deleted but that was overturned at a DRV [37]. Various users expressed it was an inappropriate topic, but the DRV overturned the G4 speedy on technical grounds. This version has been not accepted at AfC, and history of both this title and similar ones shows these drafts will not die without discussion for deletion. This is Crytospam and it's time to delete it again.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency) (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tron (cryptocurrency)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRON (cryptocurrency)
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_December_14
• Tron (cryptocurrency) and TRON (cryptocurrency) for mainspace deletions of these exact strings. Other related titles may also have been trashed, I'm not sure.

Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Sigh. As the creator of the draft, the last thing I'm here to do is contribute to the cryptospam. I have spent my entire time here fighting it. With that said, the reason the article stands today in draft space is because the article does not suffer the flaws that warranted a deletion and salt in the first place. If you examine the post-salt nominations, it is apparent that was already decided. If there is no new information since previous AfDs (beyond small additions to the article), and no new reason to nominate it for deletion, I don't see any reason for this discussion at all. Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I see a whole lot of editors who found it not notable over the last year or so. The draft came to my attention again recently and I've dealt with a lot of cryptospam too. What's the plan to make a notable article here? Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The subject itself has the mainstream coverage to be considered notable. While much of that coverage is rather poor, and comes in the form of interviews and whatnot, there still remains proper sources which are being used therein. The main issue with the draft currently is that it's a stub; but that can just be filled in. Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as draft - the sources are non-laughable, this is not the same as the past deletions, this is a sincere effort to write an acceptable article, there's nothing really justifying deleting this from draft space I think - David Gerard (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per the rationale of David Gerard, and also because the draft's creator has expressed an interest in improving it. Furthermore, in its present state (permanent link), the draft does not consist of spam, advertising or promotional content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as a draft. If @Dr-Bracket: wants to continue working on and improving the draft, we should let them. Obviously there will be a significant effort required to overcome the WP:SALT on the mainspace title. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • oh yeah, it's not at go-live yet - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - At this point, I still do not see what aspect of this particular cryptocurrency is so significant that User:Dr-Bracket wants to continue to work on it in draft space. If the proponent does not provide additional information to overcome a very strong burden against maintaining a draft, I will have to !vote Delete within the next few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "a very strong burden against maintaining a draft," what the what now? - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the number of times this page has been deleted and the widespread belief that all crypto is a scam (something not reflected in thr draft), there should be a signifocant reason to retain the draft. Legacypac (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that one of said times was your deletion that was overturned, pretty sure you can't use your own overturned action as justification - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the deletions was overturnen on a technical G4 point. So what? Has everyone editing this topic declared any WP:COI? If you own any TRON it is hard to be objective about this. Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

... you know I'm this guy right, and not some sort of crypto fan - David Gerard (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I don't research other editors. Looks like an interesting read :) Cheers. Legacypac (talk)

Just as FYI, I don't own or have any other COI with Tron. I have nothing to gain by writing this draft, and just wanted to see it created properly. Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

02:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The replies to my question appear to be hand waves and non-replies. It isn't clear to me why this particular cryptocurrency needs an effort made to develop a neutral draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Columbus, Georgia[edit]

Portal:Columbus, Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TTH portal a minute special. 25 potential scope pages, including lists, Columbus–Auburn–Opelika, GA–AL CSA and others that cover topics wider than this city. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - The same comment applies to this one as to Austin, Minnesota. If there is another city with the same name that is the one that Americans think of, and Indians and Britons and Australians and English-fluent French think of a mariner, it isn't a portal subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Lots of places including my home province are named for Columbus. If you asked me where the city of Columbus is I'd say Ohio and Google agrees with me returning Columbus, Ohio as the answer, and Ohio results for the top hits. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Braga[edit]

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

Very unclear from the elements presented here if this is about the city, the municipality, or the District (which is below a Province). The Introduction is about the city and municipality but the Subtopics are based on the District of the same name. If about the city, it is only the 7th largest city in a smaller country and not a broad enough topic with enough articles (they do have about 7 notable museums but you can't get to 20 pages here). If this is about the District (meaning the intro article is incorrectly selected), it should be deleted as a 3rd order government like the US Counties, Districts of India and Quebec regional districts were. A TTH mass creation. Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Ambiguity of scope is another reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bowie, Maryland[edit]

Portal:Bowie, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

54,000 person town. I lived 2 miles from Prince George's county and explored all over the Washington DC area but never heard of Bowie. Category:Bowie,_Maryland has some weird inclusions and random stuff in there like Shoppers Food & Pharmacy (do they have a Walmart too because if so we should categorize it into Bowie, Maryland). It looks like about 7 pages are within the scope of the town, which fails POG, Featured articles include Prince George's County Public Schools because Bowie falls into that school district. Two featured images - a map and a repeat of the lede image. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I live in Bowie, Maryland. It needs an article, not a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barrie[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"WikiProject" page that was created by a single editor on August 28, 2016 in the span of 33 minutes and never touched again (except an IP delinked something). Blank talkpage. Nothing to archive or merge, just an abandoned idea. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Stillborn WikiProject. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, so bare-bones it might almost qualify for a {{db-test}}. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Whether we need a WikiProject about the author of Peter Pan is not the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Barrie[edit]

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

Minor Canadian town, an outer suburb of Toronto. Mass created without care by TTH. For example featured article Rogers TV is a Canadawide media network - like featuring CBS on a random US city page. Links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Barrie which has a blank talkpage and will be the next MfD nomination I file. The follies of creating pages by harvesting other people's work automatically and not even checking the results. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This name also requires disambiguation. Some people will think of Peter Pan. Ambiguous portal names usually do not require portals in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Austin, Minnesota[edit]

Portal:Austin, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mass created "Austin is a city in Mower County, Minnesota, United States. The population was 24,718 at the 2010 census" Only 22 articles in the scope, and many of those exist only because Hormel Foods is based in this small town. For some reason the place has a lot of radio and two TV stations, which are included in the 22 pages. Not clear if all these stations are based in this little town or if they can be accessed there and are therefore just filler for the nav box. Selected image duplicates the lede. Featured article American Dream is a movie about Hormel, not the town. etc etc. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - In general, a portal whose subject requires disambiguation of the name is at best questionable. (For the information of Britons, Indians, and others, Austin is assumed to mean Austin, Texas, a city of more than twenty-five times the size.) This one isn't questionable, but just not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Chicago Metro Area Portals[edit]

Portal:Aurora, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:East Chicago, Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Gary, Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Hammond, Indiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Arlington Heights, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mass created portals - because they have a nav box. Duplicate scope to Portal:Chicago which should really be about the Chicagoland metro area. Featured articles harvested off the nav box include a bunch of high schools, a mall and lovely examples like "The following list includes notable people who were born or have lived in Aurora, Illinois. For a similar list organized alphabetically by last name, see the category page."

The selected image for me on Aurora is a map "Location of Illinois in the United States" There is a lack of scope here when you exclude low importance pages like all the high schools, but maybe a reasonable portal could be built for the larger suburbs here but this is not a reasonable effort. Effort would be better placed into expanding and improving Portal:Chicago into something that showcases the metro area. Legacypac (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral - Bundling towns in different states in the same metropolis may confuse things. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What everyone considers Chicago spans 3-4 states. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Dallas - Fort Worth Metro Area Portals[edit]

Portal:Arlington, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Garland, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for exactly the same reasons

Mass created TTH portal a minute job that duplicates scope with Portal:Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex where Arlington is listed as one of the three main cities in the infobox. The silliness of auto harvesting topics leads to assorted high schools and a shopping mall as feature articles. This informative gem of a feature article excerpt "The following is a timeline of the history of the city of Arlington, Texas, USA. " (and nothing more) which tells you nothing that a Timeline of Arlington, Texas link does not tell you. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've bundled Garland which is within Dallas County so clearly within the Metroplex portal scope as well. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete As per nom—We already have a portal for these cities. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 01:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete As a Texan, and resident of the DFW area, I demand satisfaction Legacypac. Wet Trouts at midnight! /sarcasamoff If there was some curated content (or thoughts about how to create the portal) I could see Arlington as a potential sub-portal of DFW (Texas Rangers, Dallas Cowboys, Six Flags over Texas, Wet 'n Wild/Hurricane Harbor, University of Texas - Arlington, etc), so I recommend a Soft Delete for that (no objections to a thought out/planned portal in the future) Hasteur (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Ambiguity also applies to Arlington. I know where Arlington is. So does a Texan. The fact that we know different answers proves that neither is obvious (and it looks as if there are 26 towns with that name). Seriously, we don't need these portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Small Cities in California Portals[edit]

Portal:Cupertino, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another small city mass created TTH portal. 16 pages in the scope including the school district, two high schools, a bridge, a couple streets, a couple neighborhoods. Normal small city stuff. Nothing about this city of 58,000 people suggests it needs a portal except the existence of a navbox to piggyback the portal on. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Albany, California as an example of a similar town.

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete all of these: do not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - It takes longer than a minute to consider whether to delete a portal. I am not referring to any other existing portals because I reserve the right to argue for their deletion also. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Bundled Malibu pop 12,000 and more I found in another category. The categorization of these mass creations is awful. Part of the portal a minute program. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - more unnecessary and not at all useful mass created portals. Meszzy² (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Hildegard of Bingen[edit]

Portal:Hildegard of Bingen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With only 16 articles, this is too narrow a topic to sustain a viable portal. 1 Pageview per day. Fram (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - The interesting hagiographic history of the subject does not warrant a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete <20 articles in scope —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Subway (restaurant)[edit]

Portal:Subway (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only 9 articles, 1 pageview per day. Not a sufficiently broad scope to support a portal. Fram (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – Not enough topical content is available to satisfy WP:POG. For example, as per the nomination, Category:Subway (restaurant) only has nine articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Portal:Starbucks and Portal:Burger King decisions Portal:Fast food, and Portal:Companies should cover these chains Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete If the name needs disambiguating it's not worth a portal. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete way too little content to sustain a portal and Which Wich? is a million times better anyway. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Fast Food Portals where there are now three similar pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I made this portal and I also made a mistake. I agree with NorthA and others. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Fatty acids[edit]

Portal:Fatty acids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another clearly deficient "self maintaining" portal. Introduction? Two images, which are hardly helpful without the context they get in the article. Strange order of sections. Errors (stray characters between sections).

Yes, most of these probably can be fixed. Just like the other 4000 or so portals mass created and then abandoned "can be fixed". Strangely, no one cares about fixing them until they are at MfD though. So why bother? If neither the portal creator, the readers, or a project care about this at any time since its creation, then why should it be saved? Fram (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete No content, no prospects. Information and links are at Fatty acid. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete in this case you really need the advice "Do you have a question about Fatty acids that you can't find the answer to? Consider asking it at the Wikipedia reference desk." Because there is no useful info on the portal. Fixes after the MfD are disruptive. You can quickly find errors like this hitting the Random Portal button so you don't need MfDs to find them. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This portal should be rendered. See Salt Fat Acid Heat. But the portal is self-maintaining, in that it was never any good and will stay at its current level. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Nile[edit]

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

This is a sad example of the poor content we are serving to our readers with automated portals. This has been here for six months. Our portal about the Nile river serves up "Selected general articles" about the death metal band Nile. Is that the best we can do? I can see how theoretically the Nile river is a broad enough topic for a portal, but if this was created in less than one minute and in six months not another human being has touched it, then why do we have it? Let's delete it, and if and when someone wants to actually make a portal about the Nile river, it can be recreated as a real portal, instead of an embarrassment. Leviv ich 05:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete No content other than an extract from Nile. The portal's text about an "American technical death metal band" confirms the failure of automated portals. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this covers three unrelated topics. The intro and photos are about the river. The selected articles and nav box is about the band, and the DYK is "... that humans and horses are dead-end hosts for the West Nile virus?" which is neither related to the river or the band. This is a great example why we need to speedy delete thr entire batch. Legacypac (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - The portal as displayed at 0438, 6 April, illustrates the stupidity of automated portals, because it shows a DYK about West Nile fever (about 10,000 km west of the Nile) and an article about the band Nile. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. A great should be: DYK that Nile river was arrested in 2012 because of Marijuana distribution and an error in the script to transcribe the court order ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Haven’t been able to sleep the last few nights due to worry about the oncoming robot apocalypse, but now I am no longer worried. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Snow delete, may even qualify as {{db-test}} due to the completely disparate topics being grouped. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Blackberries[edit]

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

Fails WP:POG as not enough scope of articles. The featured articles include much broader pages like crumble, Drupelet, invasive species and Aggregate fruit. Below 20 articles. Mass creation by User:The Transhumanist. I'm not convinced that Wikiproject Food and drink or agriculture wants to support these mass created portals. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 14:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete same issues as with the blueberry portal. Rubus is a massive genus, and every species has edible berries. There a few cultivated species that are called blackberries. There are many wild species with black fruits, some of which are called blackberries and some of which are called dewberries. The genus Rubus would be a better scope for a portal rather than arbitrarily picking a handful of the species that are called "blackberries". But Rubus fruits are still of pretty minor importance as human food source, and a portal isn't needed. Plantdrew (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blueberries Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per Plantdrew. No need for portals on plant genera. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. No category, which is a required portal element (WP:POG). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:The B-52's[edit]

Portal:The B-52's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single band portal, with very limited scope outside short pages on their songs and albums. The band's work is already linked from the article.

Big red "Lua error in Module:Random_slideshow at line 170: No images found." shows this is a self maintaining portal.

Pointless "Do you have a question about The B-52's that you can't find the answer to? Consider asking it at the Wikipedia reference desk." since the Ref desk is not your personal music search service. A TTH portal a minute creation. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Is this about the band, or the aircraft? The United States still has B-52s in active service. Legacypac writes: 'shows this is a self maintaining portal'. Either there is a missing "not" or there is unobvious sarcasm. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought obvious Sarcasm. we were told one editor can maintain thousands of portals, but they can't check their own creations. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Susan B. Anthony[edit]

Portal:Susan B. Anthony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:POG as lacking at least 20 articles about the subject. While the three buildings associated with her and some of the other pages in the category are ok, general broad scope topics like Women's suffrage, Women's suffrage in the United States, National Women's Rights Convention and various organizations she was associated with are not reasonably within the scope of articles ABOUT Anthony. Even then, some are featured articles in this portal. Neither are her notable sibling articles within the scope. These related topics are fine for the nav box on the article were one might browse from the links, but not for a portal about this person. Anyway including all the distant topics only gets the count to 23. The image in the first article is the default image under selected images as usual. Another slap it together, who cares about the POG bio portal by TTH. Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Single-person portals are not necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Ulcinj[edit]

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

Abandoned portal in the "under construction" category since 2013. Subject has an "urban population of 10,707" so lacks scope. Settlements list is a sea of redlinks, Selected article is fixed, as is the main article and selected bio (there are no more articles to browse). This is a partial snapshot of the Ulcini page from 2013. "In the news: Port Milena bridge was inaugurated on 21 May 2013" sums up how useless this time capsule is. Legacypac (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this and all other portals that have been under construction since before 2019. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tamil Eelam[edit]

Portal:Tamil Eelam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last brought for deletion discussion in 2015 @Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tamil Eelam this abandoned page is very outdated and not supported. A bunch of generic edits by the portals crew has not addressed the fundamental issue this is an outdated static mirror POV page about a separatist group that has not been finished since 2012. The news section includes 404 errors and links [38] to 2012 news. The keep arguments from 2015 no longer hold water because no one fixed the page even though it lives in Category:Portals under construction Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment I've cleaned up and updated the portal, but there hasn't been much in the news since 2012. The WikiProject of the same name is currently inactive. --Auric talk 13:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but clean up only when it hits MFD does not show this will be maintained. This is the second MFD even and its been in the under construction category for years. Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - A portal on a controversial topic that resulted in a war but is not being maintained is a terrible idea. Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The tragedy of Sri Lanka is not so much that it was colonized by Great Britain, but that, when it was colonized, it was made into a crown colony rather than a princely state in Imperial India. As a result, when India was decolonized, it became a nation rather than a state, so that the Indian Army was not available to suppress the civil war. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This topic deserves a portal, and should not sink with the TTH overflow. After the required cleaning, we will have a better perspective about this specific one. Pldx1 (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 4, 2019[edit]

Portal:Grinspoon[edit]

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

Yet another single-edit drive-by creation of an automated portal on a narrow topic, in this case the Australian band Grinspoon. This portal is based solely on the navbox Template:Grinspoon, which includes all 36 articles within the potential scope.
The navbox does a much better job because it a) displays all those article titles at once, includes the complete set of links on every page within its scope. The portal is imply an inferior substitute for the head article, and its inferiority is shown by the tiny usage levels: 40 pageviews in 30 days, vs 1895 for the head article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A single band is not a suitable scope. Legacypac (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't need individual-band portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The US Navy Overview[edit]

Draft:The US Navy Overview (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While there is some functional content in the draft, it ultimately qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTESSAY. For example, "Since we are currently not doing too well diplomatically with China and North Korea is the world's biggest bully, I believe we need a much, much, much larger Navy. Don't take my word though, choose for yourself" in the draft is pure subjective opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as the creator's other contributions have been either WP:SOAPBOX, self-promotion, or vandalism. No such magazine of this title either so chances of this ever becoming a useful article are slim to none and it isn't worth archiving. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this, which does appear to be a school essay. Delete the vandal user also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Broadway roles considered demanding[edit]

Draft:List of Broadway roles considered demanding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subjective list that comes across as a violation of No original research. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This isn't a special category of roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This is an essay, and appears to be individual opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of largest law firms by head count[edit]

Draft:List of largest law firms by head count (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Likely qualifies for deletion per the gist of Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. I cannot fully access the paywalled The American Lawyer sources in the article, hence the use of the word "likely" in this nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral at this time. I have not researched the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Sourced to a single "source", this would have probably ended up in the G13 bucket if an editor had left well enough alone. No opposition to giving the community endored 6 months to improve to the draft creator. Hasteur (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, as I commented before, this should not have a copyrighted list. Otherwise create redirect to The American Lawyer after revdel. However, if multiple sources create such a list, then it could be revisited. That doesn't seem to be the case here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Community of Christ[edit]

Portal:Community of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Minor church with roots in the Latter Day Saint movement that does not meet the "broad subject areas" requirement of the WP:POG guideline. The article and template do a perfectly fine job of navigation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a minor LDS offshoot that needs an article but not a portal as too narrow. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator, the article is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Vladimir Mayakovsky[edit]

Portal:Vladimir Mayakovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Less than 20 articles is insufficient to support a portal, and 21 pageviews in 90 days (!) shows the total lack of interest in this portal. Fram (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete as always. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 14:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete individual people rarely justify a portal. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – Does not meet WP:POG; no accompanying category for the subject exists, and only 14 total articles are available about the subject (including the main article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Never heard of him, and don't see evidence for needing a portal to educate us. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Never heard of him is only your own sin. If you are not educated now, this portal was rather not A Slap in the Face of Public Taste, as would have said V.M. Pldx1 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Young Wizards[edit]

Portal:Young Wizards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A too limited topic to sustain a portal. Only 15 articles. Less than 1 pageview per day. Fram (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping for more interest.--Auric talk 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete scope too limited. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – Does not meet the minimum of around 20 articles as denoted at WP:POG. As per the nomination, Category:Young Wizards only has 15 articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - I will go along with an editor who usually defends portals and will agree that this one needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. <20 articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Western Region (Ghana)[edit]

Portal:Western Region (Ghana) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is simply a duplication of the article Western Region (Ghana) as it looked like in late 2012. Not a portal but a static mirror. Fram (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Outdated and not maintained. Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, with no prejudice to creation of a proper portal. These unfinished portals (from Category:Portals under construction) should never have been linked from mainspace. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Any portal that is under construction that was created in 2018 or earlier needs deleting. Other reasons also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This one looks older —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Article duplicate. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of the prehistoric life of France[edit]

Draft:List of the prehistoric life of France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are dozens of these massive redlink collection pages listing prehistoric life of the "country of Alabama" that keep coming up for G13. I can't see any way this would survive in mainspace but when we G13 them a restore request quickly follows. It will take ages to turn even most of the links blue to make these drafts usable. I'm bring one for deletion discussion to set a precedent against the rest just like it. Perhaps the editor behind this effort can enlighten everyone what this is all about. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. No draft-space reasons to delete. XfDs capture extreme cases, and extreme case make bad law. Do not attempt to use mfd to set new precedents when what you are really doing is trying to develop some kind of policy. What you need to do for that is a {{proposal}}, thoroughly advertised discussed and tested for consensus in an RfC. I think these pages are within scope of draftspace, G13 was created for the abandoned forgotten things, if these are not abandoned and forgotten they are not for G13. However, if they are long term drafting, i recommend moving them to a wikiproject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No new policy needed or wanted, just a weird situation I keep coming up against while doing G13 patrol. This is not an extreme case, it's just one of many very similar pages that appear to attempt to cover every country and many regions of countries. These were mass created and are now abandoned in mass. Test cases are recommended in the deletion guiidelines. I might nominate a big batch or maybe postpone deletion on a bunch, depending on how this goes. Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

To establish your rationale as a reason for deletion, you will need new policy. Nothing there justifies the bringing of a draft to mfd for deletion. I note that the author, User:Abyssal, is one of the two who was keen to develop auto-portals. Doing it in draftspace was the right thing to do. If they are abandoned, leave them for G13. If they are not abandoned, then “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This page (and a bunch like it) was up for G13 today. I don't know anything about the creator and portals. Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I do. This is connected. It is motivated by improving navigation. I like the idea, but I am not convinced these attempts are likely to work. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I also have suspicions that this is connected. I recognized Legacypac's name immediately from a recent deletion nomination for a portal with justifications that were inconsistent with Wikipedia's normal deletion policy. If being incomplete is justification why don't we delete stub articles? If he disliked the changes the Transhumanist made, why doesn't he just revert them? In any case this nomination is moot since I've been userfying these lists for a while now. Abyssal (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop casting aspirations. Draft and userspace is for pages under development. If there is a near zero chance these pages are going to mainspace they are a WP:NOTAWEBHOST issue. I don't know what to think of them except they strike me as extremely unlikely to ever be mainspace ready and putting them on a G13-REFUND path over and over seems pointless. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This and similar articles tend to have a lot of blue links pointing to the wrong subject. This is because plant and animal genera are allowed to share a name (see Category:Genus disambiguation pages for examples). There are some pretty common patterns in naming genera that lead to shared names; one is adding "ia" to the end of a common western European surname. So this article links to Boltonia which is an extant genus of plants from North America and Asia, not a prehistoric whatever from France. This situation is particularly problematic with large lists of paleontological taxa, because Wikipedia's coverage of organisms is heavily biased towards modern taxa, not prehistoric ones. With few articles for paleontological taxa, potential title collisions go unnoticed and wrong links are made. Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI @Legacypac: The page in question was moved since you nominated it for deletion and there is no direct link to this discussion from the page itself. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion runs for a week even with the page move. I read attacks on me, but no explanation of how this page will be used in Wikipedia and why it is not a WP:WEBHOST violation. Please stay on the discussion at hand. Robert figured out how to fix the link broken by the mid discussion page move. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Whatever this is, it is so messed up that it needs deleting, and moving it to user space was just disruptive, and one more reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - It is a weird mixture of being about Alabama and France. That is problematic enough that it doesn't seem likely to be fixed or to fix itself. (It isn't a self-maintaining portal that fixes itself, but self-maintaining portals that fix themselves are a myth.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Alabama text was placeholder meant to be replaced with a semi-automated process. None of the actual content is related to Alabama. Abyssal (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Abyssal is cautioned. The banner on any page that whose deletion is being discussed says that it may be edited but may not be blanked or moved. It was moved. If it is moved again, I will request that an admin lock it against moving for the duration of the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is stupid. Moving it from draft to userspace is a de facto deletion anyway. I practically handed the nominator what he wanted on a silver platter. Abyssal (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Allow userfication per the wishes of the sole substantial author, User:Abyssal. Advise experienced Wikipedians generally to not use draftspace in place of userspace, and to read WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete it's based off of List of the prehistoric life of Alabama which has spawned multiple List of the prehistoric life of (state in US) articles. The problem with the lists is that it is not clear how they were constructed. WP:NOTSTATS "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". The reference is Fossilworks database, but that website just has a search function where you can look up any stuff that matches a state/region. Also there is no context for having a list solely connected to France or a specific state. It would need news articles and journals discussing prehistoric life in France. Per WP:NOTCATALOG "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" for crossing fossils with particular states "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Andrea Mantegna[edit]

Portal:Andrea Mantegna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Italian painter. The portal repeats part of the article text, the images and the nav box for the artist's work. Only 2 tangently related articles in the associated category - a building and a modern scholar who studies this artist. Every other related article is about a painting and all of those are linked from the article nav box, with the more important pieces also linked from a list in the article text (not shown on the portal). This portal is just a stripped down less useful version of the Andrea Mantegna article. Worse the portal includes useless links to other wikiprojects where you are unlikely to find News etc but is missing the really useful resources at the bottom of the real article. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Another single-person portal with too narrow a subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:André Gide[edit]

Portal:André Gide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal which is too narrow. Only 10 pages on his works, which can easily be explored from his article. This adds no functionality to the article, just makes the info harder to see because you have to click off to the article or scroll the photos (1 in 3 chance to see the same photo repeated). X3 mass creation Legacypac (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, currently the portal selects from 2 images, 3 articles. Embarrassing. (And again, I probably spent more time and thought on this delete vote than went into the page creation). —Kusma (t·c) 08:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion, and is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We are all aware that you and some other portal lovers are preventing us from mass deleting the crap that was mass created without thought. We are well aware you are making us come up with unique reasoned arguments on a page by page basis for pages that were created at rates as fast as 12 per second. Now stop being disruptive and posting the same things over and over. Legacypac (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment to closer – Actually, I have !voted to delete many of the portals in recent discussions, not that it should matter. Recently at ANI (perm link), most respondents there stated that they had absolutely no concerns with my post above and others like it. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Well, that's over now; hopefully we can all get along now and move on. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately the top-level article has an orange tag and, apart from the bibliography, all of the content in the template is either a stub or has an orange level tag. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Some of Gide's stories involve the protagonist committing a gratuitous crime, a crime without real motive, as a supposed gesture of free will. The creation of some of these portals has been gratuitous, like acts in Gide, done evidently in order to demonstrate free will rather than to serve a purpose. Having done that, this porta can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Did You Know that the script was sufficiently dumb to miss Travels_in_the_Congo_(book) (1927) ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – Too narrow of a scope and not enough content available to qualify a portal; fails WP:POG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Allgemeine-SS[edit]

Portal:Allgemeine-SS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal mass created by User:The Transhumanist. 19 related pages - bios and units of this branch of a SS branch of the Nazi military. Fails WP:POG as too narrow a topic. We also have Portal:Nazism and Portal:World War II which are the broad topics. Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion, and is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – The nominator modified the nomination after I posted my comment above (diff). Denoting this to avoid my initial comment being taken out of context. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can thank me now for "fixing" these noms just for you. Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - A mass created portal, and too narrow a focus are reasons to delete, and are why X3 is being considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete: not useful to readers. As an auto created portal, this looks too much like propaganda. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alejandro Jodorowsky[edit]

Portal:Alejandro Jodorowsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only 15 subtopics, mosty for his works. A single person portal, an X3/TTH mass automated creation portal, and not a wide enough topic for WP:POG. This adds nothing to the article on the subject. Legacypac (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion, and is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - A single person portal and a mass automated creation portal are reasons to nominate a portal for deletion, as is adding nothing to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Black Lives Matter[edit]

Portal:Black Lives Matter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Plenty or scope but this portal covers a controversial topic best handled in articles with references. A very recent automatic creation. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is definitely room for improvement, but I am not convinced that it needs to be deleted and meets WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 06:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – Passes WP:POG. References can be viewed by selecting/clicking on the "Read more" links in the portal, which leads to the articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

We put refs on the page that needs them - the reader should not need to go hunting for them. This format can not provide the balance needed. Balance is found in a proper article not some snippets. This is similar to the some other controversial portal topics we deleted already. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – In the 2014 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 7 § References in portals, users were against references being existent in portals. As such, a lack of sources in this present portal does not qualify deletion. The notion of "we put refs on the page that needs them" in regards to portals is a personal opinion, and is not backed by any consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A local discussion that violates sitewide policy, arrived at to solve a display problem. Oh refs are giving us problems, let's toss all the refs. Not binding on the site. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep doesn't appear to have been created automatically and easily passes WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The portal's code contains the text "This portal was created using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}". Subst-ing a complex template is the definition of an automated portal creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I've checked the creator's contribution log and this portal was not created in bulk. I would imagine most portals start out with the basic portal start page template. SportingFlyer T·C 15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, which is precisely the problem: with this template, there is no intelligent curation, leading to all the issues that we see in a majority of portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The user has made numerous portals this way, including some after the RFC mandated pause. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• By this logic, we should remove articles created using the Articles for Creation wizard. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If the basic structure of the Article Creation Wizard produced numerous errors and lead to an RFC that resulted in a pause in it's use while the issue was sorted out, absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Plenty of content available to qualify this portal. See the category tree below:

(Select [►] to view subcategories)

▼ Black Lives Matter

► Black Lives Matter people

► Shooting of Michael Brown

► Death of Freddie Gray

► Shooting of Trayvon Martin

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A disruptive comment that does not address the reason for the nomination. I specified there was lots of content in the scope, the issue is the controversial nature of the topic and lacknof references in the portal format. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - This portal does appear to have been created using automated tools . Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Portals are best used to handle non-controversial topics. Apparently the portal advocates simply think that the higher the profile of the article, the greater the need for a portal. I disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - This portal only make sense if carefully maintained by a flesh and blood person. Volunteer anyone ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamophobia Legacypac (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Regional and narrow Topic. Not meets WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Dhallywood[edit]

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

Abandoned unfinished in Aug 2017. Three portal project members have done "maintenance" since but not resolved obvious issues like the blank Recognized Content section (headings only), the redlinked Topics template, the various redlinks in the Things you can do section, or the lack of featured articles or other elements that are static and can't be changed by the viewer. Portals need maintenance and the portals project is not maintaining even portals like this that could be a broad enough topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What if I finished this portal within a few days? Thanks in advance for consideration. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep broad enough topic to pass WP:POG, issues are easily resolved. SportingFlyer T·C 08:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – Meets WP:POG per available content, such as that denoted in the category tree below. Also, the portal creator has asked for some time herein to potentially update the portal.

(Select [►] to view subcategories)

▼ Dhallywood

► Bangladeshi actors

► Bangladeshi film awards

► Bengali film songs

► Cinema of Bangladesh

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination does not allege lack of scope. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Moheen Reeyad seems to volunteer for the maintenance of this portal. A more formal statement would help me to make an opinion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice he created it and has not finished it yet years later. He came to the conversation because he got a deletion discussion notice. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Desouk[edit]

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

Small Egyptian city with only 13 articles in its category including 4 bios of people from the city. Too small a topic for WP:POG. The nav box and some other elements here are generic to the country of Egypt. Legacypac (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. <20 articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 3, 2019[edit]

Portal:Furniture[edit]

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

A poorly constructed TTH speedy created portal. Selected articles include curtains, wicker and radio receiver, none of which are really furniture. I'm sure the ref desk is waiting for all your furniture questions and Wikinews has the latest furniture news. Maybe a good portal could be hand built around furniture but 12 seconds is not enough time or effort to make a portal worth keeping. Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion, and is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – The nominator modified the nomination after I posted my comment above (diff). Denoting this to avoid my initial comment being taken out of context. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

While you made such a big deal about X3 confusing you, I fixed it just for you. Next I expect whining about criticizing your collaborator in portal spam production on nomination after nomination. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - A poorly constructed portal. 12 seconds is not enough time or effort to make a portal worth keeping. It takes longer to get rid of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Hilary Duff[edit]

Portal:Hilary Duff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another single person portal. There are some articles about her music and other projects but insufficent scope here. Also an unsourced BLP. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Again, we don't need a single-person portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Lyra (constellation)[edit]

Portal:Lyra (constellation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lyra only has 5 stars. There are stars in the general area in a category but most of them seem to be one paragraph stubs. The main article is quite good but the portal is no good. Does not help the reader at all. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. No opinion, but List of stars in Lyra suggests there are a lot more than 5 stars? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is a list of stars in the area of Lyra (there are probably a gazillion if only our telescopes were powerful enough), but Lyra only consists of 5 stars. We have Portal:Astronomy which is a better fit for scope. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - No. Legacypac means that there are 5 visible stars in the constellation, and is defining a constellation as a pattern of visible stars. If you define a constellation as a region in space, which is a narrow cone extending to infinity, it also includes thousands of cataloged telescopic stars in the Milky Way and a number of stars in galaxies subtended by the cone that should only be expressed using scientific notation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The portal is after all Lyra (constellation) which has 5 stars only. So that is the scope. There are 88 constellations I believe and creating a space portal for each is silly as I doubt any have 20 stars in them. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - Look up List of stars in Lyra. It lists more than five visible stars. That doesn't mean that we need a portal. And only Vega is a bright star. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes I referenced that list in my original statement without linking it. I'm a real estate guy, not an astronomer but I can read the page that says there are 5 "main" stars and then a bunch of related stars and stuff (I'm trying to use English not astronomy language). Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Birds in culture[edit]

Portal:Birds in culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is neither an article or category for this topic. Selected articles include stuff that have little or nothing to do with birds like Fletching (part of an arrow that might use feathers), Cultural_depictions_of_dinosaurs, and Thomas_Bewick (no birds mentioned in his lede shown in the portal, though he did publish a book about birds). An WP:X3 mass creation. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion, and is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The article is at Human uses of birds (moved from Birds in culture); the category is at Category:Birds and humans. Bewick is of course predominantly now known for A History of British Birds. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Great, but it took you more time to sort that out then went into this mess of a portal. Why are we having to debate each page that was so carelessly created? Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - It is true that X3 is in discussion. However, the reasons why X3 is even being considered, namely, the reckless creation of portals by TTH, are also reasons to consider the deletion of this portal, and this portal just appears to have been created as part of a race against time, not because of the need for a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universe[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikiproject never got off the ground. Only two users signed up years ago and no one did anything. The only discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universe is an exchange about how this project is useless and a spam post about portals no one answered. This is not defunct it never started. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Already tagged as defunct. Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Anyone interested in this should go there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - already defunct. Already had a Big Crunch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Supermarket[edit]

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

An automated portal built with no care that should be deleted. Featured articles include mortgage loan, first aid kit, legume, sauces, diet food, luggage, canning, Confectionery, greeting card, toy, laundry, book, baby food, Incandescent light bulb and so on. A more random collection of articles would be hard to assemble, and not one of the articles will help anyone learn about supermarkets. Some of the pages are about processes (canning, laundry) not even things you can buy. At least the photos show supermarkets in Japan and Serbia look pretty much the same, but we can see that in the article. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The selected article appears to be a completely indiscriminate collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep There is definitely room for improvement, but I am not convinced that it needs to be deleted.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Care to explain why you selected mortgage loan, first aid kit, and canning as featured articles here User:Happypillsjr Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep – Passes the WP:POG guidelines. I have fixed the Selected articles section by copy editing the portal (diff), which makes the nomination rather moot at this point, both in terms of content concerns presented and in terms of overall notions regarding users that apparently don't "care". The portal now only lists relevant content in this section. An idea would be to notify WT:FOOD about such matters, rather than simply nominating for deletion; simple errors such as this are often easily remedied. Furthermore, passes WP:POG per the overall availability of articles, as demonstrated in the edit I performed, as well as that in the category, listed below.

(Select [►] to view subcategories)

▼ Supermarkets

► Supermarkets by continent

► Supermarkets by country

► Supermarkets by culture

► Defunct supermarkets

► Lists of supermarkets

► Attacks on supermarkets

► Supermarket banks

► Hypermarkets

► Supermarket tabloids

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and find someone to maintain the page. The creator obviously is not interested in presenting something useful and WikiProject Portals (which you are part of) can't be bothered to check for obvious problems like a completely indiscriminate collection of articles.

Also [39] is not a fix - now the portal displays an indiscriminate selection of random supermarket chains from around the world. What use is that to anyone? Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Does it matter if NA1K is a member of the WikiProject? No, it doesn't. You're grasping at straws. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes because they were a good part of the mass creation of these portals, directly making about 70 and editing many created by others. Anyway they are coming around to thinning the herd now so things are looking up. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - A weird hodgepodge. The fact that the Keepers say that they have fixed the identified problems every time just makes me wonder how many unidentified problems there are. (Hmmm. Are they like UFOs, from somewhere else in the Universe?) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• How is it "weird" for a portal about supermarkets to present content about supermarkets? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The WikiPortals team should be fixing pages with obvious errors (like when they create the pages) long before someone outside the project spots the errors. I don't consider paragraphs and logos about random supermarket chains in Japan and Finland to be serving the readers in a meaningful way. Still no answer on how mortgage loan, first aid kit, and canning were chosen as featured articles for this portal. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per NA1K. This is a broad enough topic for a portal, even if the present one could use improvement. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - What is the criterion for excluding Portal:Universe and maintaining this?Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blueberries

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Blueberries[edit] Portal:Blueberries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Too narrow a scope. Only 22 pages in Category:Blueberries including this portal and Blueberry. Four pages on things made from blueberries and 16 species pages that show little differentiation between plants or the articles. Some are just stubs others start class with little room to expand. The article on Blueberry does the job of informing readers much better. Fails WP:POG as having too few articles and no scope to grow this. Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Delete. 20 pages in the category after I did some cleanup. Blueberry is nominally about Vaccinium species in the section Cyanococcus (at least according to the lead and the taxobox). While Cyanoccocus does include all the "blueberry" species that are cultivated and/or sold commercially, there are other blue-fruited Vaccinium species, and there's nothing inherently wrong with calling them "blueberries"; we have articles for huckleberry and bilberry that also cover some other blue-fruited Vaccinium (without treating these terms as synonymous with a particular taxon). I'm not sure that we should be treating blueberry as synonymous with section Cyanococcus. Vaccinium would probably be a better scope for a portal and then we wouldn't have to worry about whether any particular species is a blueberry or a huckleberry or a bilberry. But I don't think we need a portal for Vaccinium either. Vaccinium berries aren't a particularly important food. Plantdrew (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Delete as per Plantdrew. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC) cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blackberries Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Portal:Webcomics[edit]

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

"This portal is maintained by the Webcomics Workforce, a subgroup of WikiProject Comics." Except that is not true. The "In the News" is "Old News" from 2014-2017. The images is showing a big red error message. The selected quote shows a red "does not exist" error. Running less than 3 page views a day so readers are not finding this neglected page useful. Even with all the mucking around on the page they can't get it to look proper. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure why the images stopped working. It's odd, as they worked fine until recently, and I can't find an edit in which it may have gotten broken. The 'In the news' section is a bit hard to keep up, as it is hard to find news stories that are relevant to webcomics in general rather than just a small set of webcomics. The long timeline there is by design. I fixed the quote; the max number was indeed one higher than it should have been, so there was a chance for it to give an error message rather than a quote. I really hope someone could figure out what went wrong with the image template. Maybe the template itself got changed? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 20:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Your efforts would be much better served on the articles within the scope. No one is reading the portal anyway and the portal wikiproject has been too busy creating new broken portals to fix the old broken portals. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, whatever was going on (with the slideshow template?), it seems to be working again. Oornery (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maplestrip, Oornery, and Legacypac: Module:Random slideshow was updated about 2 weeks ago to require that images have captions in order to be displayed. Portal:Webcomics had the text parameter, but not the caption parameter, specified on the {{Selected image}} templates. I added the captions to fix it. -- ferret (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Image captions are a must for portals, so the change is good. So how many other portals did that change break? Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a question for someone else, I have little involvement with portals. This was mostly academic for me, as I read about the images being broken on WP:Discord so took a look to see if I could fix them. (For anyone with canvassing concerns: The MfD itself was not brought up there, I found it from the tag on the portal page itself) -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding "Your efforts would be much better served ...", was this not a rationale for deleting all portals in general? Does this not apply to most portals? I do partly agree (I especially agree that the portal WikiProject has mostly done things to break existing portals since the project-for-deletion discussion..), but it's also a fallacy to say that any effort I or other editors put into this portal will take time away from actual articles. If anything, it's the kind of change-of-pace that can energize a person to become more active in general. Either way, now that all the minor fixes have been done, I would certainly say keep. I should keep track of this page more, because I like it and it may be a good way for me to get back into Wikipedia again after having gone through a bit of a slump. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely - most to all portals should be deleted. They don't serve readers as shown by the readers who don't use them. Every topic shows the same trend. Google does not send readers to portals. Searching on Wikipedia does not bring up portals unless you specifically ask for them. Even portals linked at the top of the mainpage (the best links on the whole site) get pitiful traffic. The only reason I care about portals is I'd like to see readers get the best experience possible and junk portals don't provide a good experiece. If you are modivated by having people read your work, pick an article. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The above discussion indicates that this portal was another good-faith effort that is not being maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could someone link me to some specific deletion policies for portals? I have difficulty finding any, and I would like to put the work into this page to keep it existing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure User:Maplestrip there are WP:POG but they are not reflective of community consensus (too loose). Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results is already fallen out of date but the discussions will help you see what is expected now. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Legacypac:! Looking through the deletion list, the pattern I'm noticing is that the deleted portals were generally semi-automatically and/or nobody came forward with any interest in maintaining them. The Guideline page doesn't have a clear deletion criteria, but I suppose the following line comes closest: "The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete. The portal should be maintained and serve a useful purpose." I'm going to set up a monthly check-up to make sure errors like the image one don't pop up again and to include new information (adding a few missing 'on this day' entries right now). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Winter Palace

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Winter Palace[edit] Portal:Winter Palace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A portal about a single cluster of buildings. Mind you it is a spectacular museum I enjoyed visiting but still only has 18 related articles which mostly include pages on specific rooms. Too narrow a focus for a portal, readers are best served by the main article. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - Too narrow a focus, and no defining category. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Old business[edit]

January 1, 1970[edit]

Portal:24 (TV series)[edit]

Portal:24 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Legacy portal "restarted" by TTH in Sept 2018. Scope of a TV show. There are some spinoff projects but none of that content is featured and is much better accessed via the well constructed article. The article 24 (TV series) provides nice season intros right in the text with links to the season articles ans charactor articles. So really all the portal does is provide a chopped up substitute for the article that requires refreshing to see everything. A disservice to the reader.

Portal:24 (TV series)[edit]

Portal:24 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Legacy portal "restarted" by TTH in Sept 2018. Scope of a TV show. There are some spinoff projects but none of that content is featured and is much better accessed via the well constructed article. The article 24 (TV series) provides nice season intros right in the text with links to the season articles ans charactor articles. So really all the portal does is provide a chopped up substitute for the article that requires refreshing to see everything. A disservice to the reader.

April 3, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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 . I am incredibly sympathetic to the argument by SportingFlyer that, wowee, there are a ton of featured articles here! But I think given the broader community's discussions of portals in general over the nine months or so, the apetitite, even if slimly expressed here, for such a narrow focus, is minimal, and the delete participants make that case well enough. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit] Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Now this is a narrow overly specific topic for a portal. There are lots of links but wow this is obscure. The creator abandoned it in 2013 but the portals project reworked things in 2018. They were supposed to clear out some of the narrow focus portals after WP:ENDPORTALS but instead no topic is too obscure for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep I think the odds I'm the only person who will be a keep vote on this may be somewhere around 99.94, but of all the portals I've reviewed recently, this is one of if not the best I've reviewed. I admittedly don't know much about Bradman's final tour, but the number of articles it links to are numerous in both quality and status (the one I clicked on randomly to see if it had been nominated for AfD was instead featured on the main page!), and if the role of a portal is to draw you into the topic this one does the best job I've seen. It clearly passes WP:POG and should be a model for anyone else wanting to create portals. SportingFlyer T·C 05:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - Exactly. "no topic is too obscure for a portal". We have one Keep vote because that editor and TTH think that no topic is too obscure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Comment Who gets to decide what's obscure? This is a topic with at least 42 featured topics - not stubs - (see [Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948]. It's one of the most important cricket tours in history. And yet we have two users, self admittedly North American on their user pages, claiming it's "obscure." On top of that it's a well-constructed portal. Part of the problem with this whole deletion process is we're racing to delete content without even any sort of reasonable guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC) The Portal project was "racing against time" to get to 10,000 portals, sometimes making 150 bio portals a day, so it is strange you find this slow painful page by page process deletion process to be too fast. If you don't support the current guidelines, make an RFC. I think the current guidelines are far to permissive but to find portals that fail the current guidelines I can just use the random portal links and within one to three clicks I've got another to nominate for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) But isn't that exactly the problem? If portal creation was done in bulk, and no one has bothered with the portal after they were created in bulk, why not delete in bulk? SITH's nominations have been excellent in this regard. Furthermore this portal isn't an obscure topic to its target audience - Bradman's final tour of England, Australia's undefeated streak, the largest crowds in Test cricket history. You would be much better off with a targeted approach, because a number of portals that have been nominated require nothing more than a little fixup. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Comment - the topic isn't all that obscure and the portal is well done. I don't really use portals at all and that's the only think stopping me from suggesting a straight keep. If the purpose of portals has changed so much then I might see a delete here, but the number of FA in the topic area suggests to me it might have some value. Pings would be appreciated if anything important crops up - I won't watch this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Delete. Holy mother of christ, ONE year of ONE nation's national cricket team is practically the fucking definition of a narrow topic. What's next? Each month of that single year, because there's just so much content? Unbelievable. Absolutely absurd topic for a portal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

April 2, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chino, California

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 . ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Chino, California[edit] Portal:Chino, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Only one subcat - people from Chino. We already deleted the portal on the county this city is in because that was too narrow a topic. The article on Chino does a much better job of introducing the reader to this town, including the map that these portals tend to lack. Maps are really important for pages on places. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Comment. Much of the sparse content is orange-level tagged or unmarked stub, but more is available under the related categories. However, maps are easy to add to portals. See eg Portal:Massachusetts. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Yes a few have maps but most I've looked at do not. Quantity over Quality. User_talk:The_Transhumanist#10,000_portals,_here_we_come... Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC) As a map from the article could easily be added, this is not a reason to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Badly built and no effort to fix is a reason to delete. We've been consistently deleting all the smaller population portals on places because the scope is too narrow. These smaller pop areas tend to have pages about the schools, maybe state level constituencies, sometimes a highway nearby, all normal predictable stuff found in every town. The highly successful well trafficed mainspace pages are so much better and that is where our efforts should be focused. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Keep: city-level and higher regional portals (but not small towns, neighborhoods, boroughs, etc.) are all viable by their very nature. I'm opposed to keeping neighborhood ones, as drilling down too far. The barely-attended MfD against US county portals was a WP:FALSECONSENSUS error; we actually need those to merge and redirect to, if we don't want to keep portals on smaller cities like Chino.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC); revised 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Delete, city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained and do not provide any useful service to the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Keep – May be expandable per content in the accompanying category. See the category tree below. North America1000 16:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC) (Select [►] to view subcategories) ▼ Chino, California ▼ People from Chino, California ► Mayors of Chino, California Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - I thought that I had already !voted against this one, but apparently not. What size of municipalities do the advocates of portals think warrants portals? I agree with PMC that city-level portals are too fine-grained. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete Individual small cities do not meet WP:POG's breadth of subject area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burlington, Vermont

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 . I find particularly poignant the argument (via Premeditated Chaos and echoed by others) that when it comes to portals for small places, while there may be plenty of relevant articles the narrow focus works better as an article format. Fun town, though! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Burlington, Vermont[edit] Portal:Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Capital of the state but only 42,000 people means does not have enough scope for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Comment: Burlington is the largest city, not the capital. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC) My error. Not being a capital is another strike against a portal here. It is a pretty small place and not large enough to warrent s portal. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Not a hopeless topic (fairly interesting among cities of this size), but a terrible portal. Delete with no prejudice against recreation of a better version. Note that the city article itself has many galleries and works far better as a navigational tool. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC) The creators are unlikely to fix it since they were "racing against time" [40] to create as many poorly done portals as quickly as possible. Legacypac (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Keep: city-level and higher regional portals are all viable by their very nature. I'm opposed to keeping neighborhood ones, as drilling down too far.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Delete, city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained and do not provide any useful navigational or organizational service to the reader not already provided by the article itself and the navbox. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Keep – Expandable per content available at Category:Burlington, Vermont. North America1000 16:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - I agree with PMC that city-level portals are unnecessarily fine-grained. The reason for creating them was presumably precisely that it permitted the creation of a much larger number of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete Individual small cities do not meet WP:POG's breadth of subject area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:T. E. Lawrence

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: no consensus . Call it a procedural close if you like, or even a WP:TRAINWRECK, but I find the arguments for bulk deletion here weak, especially those with ad hominem focus on the creator rather than the content of the content. More to the point, the others, while in the minority, make very good arguments that the variety of individuals nominated here makes this an unproductive venue for discussion barring a broader consensus on such topics. No prejudice against nomination of each individually or in other smaller and more relevant groups. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC) 2018-12-30 Biography portals[edit] 17 biography portals Portal:T. E. Lawrence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:George Marshall (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Ruhollah Khomeini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Douglas MacArthur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Sun Yat-sen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Kim Il-sung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Corazon Aquino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Abdul Hamid II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Saddam Hussein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Nicolae Ceaușescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Helmut Kohl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Boris Yeltsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Leonid Brezhnev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Diana, Princess of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Portal:Queen Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Discussion[edit] These portals were all created on 2018-12-30 by the same user. They are all on individual people with few constituent articles, failing WP:POG. SITH (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete random single person topics don't warrent a portal. Rapid fire bulk creation deserves at least bulk deletion. Same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brandy Norwood and a whole bunch of other pages about single individuals that have been deleted already. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Comment. Keep all. This is yet another miscellaneous batch. Some of these clearly have sufficient material to make a decent portal. I'd highlight the British ones, Portal:Queen Victoria (where the lead article is an FA that gets 39,255 views daily), Portal:Diana, Princess of Wales (B-class lead with 9,942 daily page views) and Portal:Margaret Thatcher (GA lead with 7,294 daily page views), where there looks to be plenty of material and high reader interest in the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Changing to keep all after seeing the adjacent bulk nomination by the same nominator. There is no delete rationale. The nominator has plainly not examined each portal in sufficient detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC) WP:X3 we already established over many MfDs that single person portals generally fail portal guidelines and these mass created automated portals have many problems. If you can't articulate a reason to keep each portal on the list please don't impose unreasonable demands for us to discuss them one by one by every loving one for a week when they were created at speeds of 5 or 6 per minute. Thank-you for pointing out page views for these content forks. Portal:Queen Victoria has 52 pageviews in 30 days. That is background noise, mainly from bots, level traffic. Numbers don't lie. The others are similar. Yelson got 52 page views. Dianna 90 page views. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep without prejudice to nominating smaller, more thought out groups. As Espresso Addict has noted, there are plenty of major biographical topics included in this nomination. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Delete all per nom. In addition to the argument that, since no thought was put into creation, little argument should be required for deletion, this is a reasonably-sized chunk. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Delete All - As Arthur Rubin says, no thought was put into creation. However, I do not object to a procedural close. This is very much a mixed bag, consisting mostly of historical heads of state and heads of government, but not entirely. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Delete all per nom, making sure there aren't any intermediate edits. Many if not all of these pass WP:POG and deserve a portal if someone who's not automated wants to adopt them. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion; it is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America1000 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Procedural Keep and nominate separately. In my opinion, the grouping here is too diverse, and would better discussed on a case-by-case basis in separate discussions. North America1000 10:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Delete all. Every single one of these portals is automated spam, created by the infamous portalspammer @The Transhumanist. It is ridiculous that the community is forced to have lengthy discussions on even batched groups of this spam, when the portsalspammer created each of them in seconds simply by typing {{subst:quick portal}} (or a similar template). I have checked each of the portals, and every one draws its article list solely from a single navbox. This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because: the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time. the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page. The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes: both the topic navbox and any related navboxes A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede. Note that this nomination is about navigation between wikiedia articles. It is not in any way a judgement on significance of the people they potray. The problem here is simply that these automated spam portals are an impediment to navigation, luring readers onto pages which add no value to the head article. It may be that in some cases a properly-curated portal could be created on some of these topics, which added signifucant value beyond the navbox. I have not attempted to check that, but if any editor wants to do so, then there is no need to have this hanging around -- they could be re-created in seconds. These automated spam portals such a this are simply a waste of readers' time. The portals fans' opposition to speedy deletio now means that they are wasting huge amounts of editors time. This tactic of requiring close scrutiny of every single page created by a spammer is the most blatant exercise in WP:Gaming the system that I have sen for a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Pageviews. I just checked the pageviews of for Portal:Queen Victoria, for the calendar months of Feb and March 2019, before the views were distorted by listing at MFD. The result is 67 views in those 59 days. That's 1.16 views/day, or 8 views/week ... which is so low that it quite possible that it may consist solely of web-crawling bots. The evidence is clear: even on a highly significant topic such as Queen Victoria, readers simply are not interested in these bloated navboxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Telephone[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Telephone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:WikiProject Telephone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stillborn Wikiproject where the [discussion] is about the lack of need for the Wikiproject when WikiProject Telecommunication covers it. Only the creator and one other person signed on and then nothing happened. Nothing historical here. Maybe redirect if people insist but I prefer to just delete the whole thing. Legacypac (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, clearly redundant and unused. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect the template template:WikiProject Telephone to template:WikiProject Telecommunications, delete the project. No op Christian75 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect the template, delete the project and associated categories.Le Deluge (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Prehistory of Oceania[edit]

Portal:Prehistory of Oceania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned effort with some of the same redlinked elements since inception in 2015. The long list of redlinked pages requested is not attractive. The Transhumanist messed around with the layout, making the page worse. Portals should not live in the under construction category for 4 years. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - As the nominator says. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. None of the proposed justifications for deletion are consistent with policy for articles and shouldn't be used for portals, either. Abyssal (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Guidelines require (or required until recently) a maintenance plan. The community has been very clear that portals must be maintained and abandoned ones are commonly deleted. Legacypac (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• KEEP, WTF, this portal was not created by the Trans"humanist" and is very notable and linked at hundreds of pages. Tisquesusa (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• If linked at hundreds of pages while under construction for 4 years, all the more reason to delete this. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete There is not even a Prehistory of Oceania article, for Jimbo's sake! Starting with the portal seems bass-ackwards. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sushi

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 . ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Sushi[edit] Portal:Sushi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 18 subtopics including several lists. Many of the subtopics are very short, under developed or can't be developed much beyond a stub like Seattle roll. The rest of the scope here is businesses that make or serve sushi that have articles, and those pages are only of interest to locals or visitors to their local market. Just not a topic well suited to a portal - the article does a better job. Even with very prominate linking by text and image from every food portal this is running less than 10 views a day compared to Sushi with 6,606 revisions since 2001-09-27, 3,344 editors, 432 watchers, 75,518 pageviews (30 days), Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete, regretfully. Although it's an attractive portal and the category does have a moderate amount of content to draw from, spot checks suggest that a high proportion of the articles are stubs, short starts or orange-level tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep - 18 pages is sufficient scope for a portal in my opinion, with potential for future additions. The fact that many of those need further expansion is not a reason for removing the portal that links to them; if anything, drawing attention to them in a portal might attract editors to expand them further. WaggersTALK 12:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Please read the nom statement carefully. I included page view stats. The portal will never modivate readers to improve the stubs around the topic. Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC) 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. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - Part of the difference between portal supporters and portal skeptics appears to be that portal supporters have great optimism that portals will improve themselves and improve Wikipedia. My guess is that the portal is not likely to expand. (If it does, what will it eat?) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Comment there is a good case to merge together some of the types of sushi stubs into a types of sushi section at Sushi. California roll is just an ingredient variation. We don't need an article on each item on the sushi menu any more than each possible mix of pizza topping. This cleanup would reduce the pool of articles a lot. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Delete, ridiculously narrow scope for a portal. Sushi is a sub-topic of a sub-topic, it is not such a broad topic as to require a portal to ease navigation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Portal:Daddy Yankee[edit]

Portal:Daddy Yankee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single person portal. 60 song and 7 album pages but still just an unreferenced bio with his works, all of which can be accessed just fine off his wikipedia article. Insufficient scoop for a portal. Not an X3. Legacypac (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - If we're going to play the numbers game, 67 pages is certainly sufficient scope for a portal. Problems with the biography article itself aren't related to whether or not a portal should exist. WaggersTALK 12:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

??? This portal is an unreferanced bio. We have been deleting many bios because almost all bios are agreed to be insufficent scope for a portal. See many examples in the archives. Legacypac (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• 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. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - This is not a copy-and-paste vote, and the term is !vote anyway. A numbers game with popularity figures is still a numbers game (and there is a 40% edge in private numbers games and a 50% edge in state numbers games). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – In the 2014 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 7 § References in portals, users were against references being existent in portals. As such, a lack of sources in this present portal does not qualify deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kindly stop spamming the same comment on multiple pages. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aretha Franklin

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 . I am sympathetic to the delete !votes, but the arguments for keep in this case are stronger, even accounting for flippancy ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Aretha Franklin[edit] Portal:Aretha Franklin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Single person portal. Most of the page is a long reprint of part of her article, without sources. Checking the featured articles shows album pages that are thin and orange tagged. Everyday People is a featured article but you need to read to near the end to find out Franklin covered the song. Single artists are better served by a article where all the info is there, not chopped up on a portal page. An WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep - a prolific recording artist with many related articles, there is plenty of scope for a portal. WaggersTALK 12:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep – we already debunked the Single person portal rationale at Adele's MfD. This is a properly made, self-maintaining portal with plenty of material to sustain it. Thin and tagged articles deserve attention, but that is no reason to delete other pages on the topic. Certes (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC) You did not debunk anything on a still open MfD by claiming a recording artist needs a portal because a US President justifies a portal. There is an ever growing list of deleted single person/group/company portal topics deleted because they are about a single person/group/company etc. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete. "Self-maintaining portals" are wishful thinking. Fram (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) 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. SportingFlyer T·C 18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - Where is the documentation for how self-maintaining portals maintain themselves? This is yet another single-person portal, and single-person portals are too narrow a focus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep – This portal meets WP:POG. This is in part per the availability of articles about the subject. See the category tree below for examples. North America1000 03:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (Select [►] to view subcategories) ▼ Aretha Franklin ► Aretha Franklin album covers no subcategories ▼ Aretha Franklin albums ► Aretha Franklin compilation albums ► Aretha Franklin live albums ► Aretha Franklin songs no subcategories Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion; it is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America1000 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Keep single-person portals need a very broad scope to qualify, but I believe such a scope exists here. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Delete Single performers such as this person so not meet the breadth-of-subject matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

April 1, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity (2nd nomination)

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 . I'll be restoring the pages deleted in 2014​, I believe they were just the following: Portal:Nudity/box-footer Portal:Nudity/Selected picture/Previous Portal:Nudity/Selected article Portal:Nudity/Nudity news Portal talk:Nudity/Did you know Portal:Nudity/Did you know Portal talk:Nudity/Web resources Portal:Nudity/Web resources Portal:Nudity/Selected picture Portal:Nudity/Related portals Portal:Nudity/Nudity-related topics Portal:Nudity/Associated Wikimedia Portal talk:Nudity/box-header Portal:Nudity/box-header Portal:Nudity/Things you can do Portal:Nudity/Selected biography Portal:Nudity/Quotes Portal:Nudity/Intro ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Nudity[edit] Portal:Nudity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Assorted unused subpages. Redirected by discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity and by various editors over several years. This one will not die so bringing for deletion again. It is not maintained and now become a problematic automated portal until I redirected it again. Also delete the unused subpages that remain (I was able to delete some blank ones but the way outdated Portal:Nudity/News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was disputed when I speedy tagged it as unused G6. Legacypac (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Comment - Hasn't this already been redirected? What are we trying to delete? Can this wait until 2 April? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC) You nominated a different portal and linked to this discussion here. [41] Dream Focus 18:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC) You didn't fix it, you did the same error again. [42] You need to revert the page want to be in this deletion discussion back from a redirect to when it had content, then place the nomination there. Dream Focus 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Darn redirect. Hopefully fixed now Legacypac (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Keep - First, nudity can not be directly related to sexuality, the MfD who did this was a mistake. Portal:Nudity was not a mass creation, it is in the process of rebuilt. The rebuilt was requested by the user @ErikAmsterdam: HERE, who later thanked me by email. Wikipedia email from user _ErikAmsterdam_.eml To: "Guilherme Burn" <XXXXX> Subject: Wikipedia email from user "ErikAmsterdam" From: "Wikipedia" <wiki@wikimedia.org> Reply-To: "ErikAmsterdam" <XXXXXXX> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:13:06 +0000 Message-ID: <enwiki.5c6edc221fbac1.76149751@en.wikipedia.org> X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer List-Unsubscribe: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Hello Guilherme, Thank you for your message. I am still new here and I find the editing system of Wikipedia very complicated.... Thank you for repairing what I should not have deleted. Best regards, Erik Amsterdam -- This email was sent by user "ErikAmsterdam" on the English Wikipedia to user "Guilherme Burn". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents. The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. And there is a project that supports this portal Wikipedia:WikiProject Nudity. The fact that an article is deleted, or redirected by Mfd, does not prevent it from being re-created. The fact that the portal has errors can not be grounds for an exclusion too.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC) I suggest getting concensus at the Wikiproject before trying to build a portal on this topic. Soem Wikiprojects are not willing to support portals. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC) WikiProject Nudity is marked with the {{inactive}} template, "This WikiProject is believed to be inactive". Attempting to obtain a consensus from a defunct project makes no sense. North America1000 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Well then that is a reason not to have the portal. No wikiproject to maintain it. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep – Meets WP:POG. Has enough content to qualify. North America1000 00:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Neutral at this time. Errors are so a reason to delete a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep If it meets WP:POG, then leave it be. Thousands of people have seen it according to the page view stats for the past 30 days. So its useful to someone. Dream Focus 19:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, less than 5% of the nearly 97,000 page views at Nudity. What format do the readers prefer? Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Obviously some prefer the portal. No reason to eliminate one thing because something else is more popular. Dream Focus 23:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)  Administrator note: the 2014 MFD on this, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nudity was not well attended, so feel free to have a new discussion - I had a request to undelete the old subpages, but will defer that this this discussion - any admin that feels they will help this discussion is welcome to restore. — xaosflux Talk 21:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Meanwhile I was trying to delete the stray empty/busted subpages and ran into having my edits reverted so decided to nominate the whole portal to either enforce the redirect decision and delete the subpages or at least delete the unused subpages. Legacypac (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep Meets WP:POG, which is the test for portals. I can find no guidelines to suggest errors, page views relative to another article or no Wikiproject are grounds to delete. Agree with the comment above that the redirection to sexuality was erroneous. Nudity and sexuality are not the same thing. I struggle to see how a "discussion" with only two replies to the nomination, one of which was from the nominator, can be seen as a consensus to do anything. --John B123 (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Sportsteam portals

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 . I am sympathetic to the argument(s) about Portal:New England Revolution, as well as the effort put in, but feel that the delete !votes present broad and convincing arguments for all four. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Nashville Predators[edit] Portal:Nashville Predators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A single team portal (one of many), typical of the problems associated with these. Some of the issues I list are fixable, the underlying problems aren't, making the fixes rather useless. No interest in this portal; 34 pageviews in the last 90 days! No care in making this portal: the default view has a "selected article" where the text shown is 90% identical to the introduction, ("The Nashville Predators are ..." etcetera, even though the actual link is to a different article; it then shows _COC_, which is wikitext markup which should be hidden here. This is an error in the target page, but that error was already there when this portal was created. Other "selected articles" have the typical rather broad entries, a number of lists where the text displayed at the portal makes no sense in that context ("this is a list of..." when that is the only line displayed), yet another article which starts with the same text as the introduction, a season, then a third article starting with the same text, another list, ... Of the 12 "selected" articles, probably half should never have been shown as is. Mind you, it is still better than Portal:New England Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), another similar portal which has gotten 22 pageviews in 90 days, and which is just totally broken. Portals don't need maintenance any more! So I nominated that one as well. Yet another large group of problematic portals, yay! Fram (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Let's add the Portal:Arizona Diamondbacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): less than 1 pageview per day, only 1 image, the selected articles have in about 50% of the cases a redlinked file at the right, or they simply repeat the main article intro... Another portal which isn't serving our readers at all, but luckily they aren't interested in it either. Fram (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Dallas Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete all three, terrible portals. It is a bit sad because pro sports teams could be a wonderful topic to have portals about (click through the current roster could be fun), but to make good portals would require putting in some work and doing some maintenance at least every year or so. If portal creators can't be bothered to even check the selected articles for suitability, we shouldn't have to spend so much time debating them. —Kusma (t·c) 14:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Keep Portal:New England Revolution, SportingFlyer is busy improving it. Delete the others. —Kusma (t·c) 18:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC) The other ones I've targeted to fix up as well, I just haven't had time yet. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Delete all as poorly created. I happened across the Dallas Stars while searching for airline portals so am bundling it here. Barely 20 artices in the scope if you try real hard. Legacypac (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Neutral as written. This nomination was originally valid but is now a train wreck because it consists of teams in three different professional sports that have different degrees of popularity and different audiences in North America. In particular, the Diamondbacks, which are a baseball team, should be put on a lower-priority track for deletion, being one of the major sports in North America. Ice hockey is the fourth of the four major sports, but the two teams nominated are in the Southern United States and so outside of the hockey belt. Association football, while the most popular sport in the world, is the fifth of the four major sports in the United States, and has a comparable position in Canada. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC) 'Depete per nom, broken and unfinished portals. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Neutral. These are some of the worst portals in the namespace and are not useful in their current form. Commercial interests make it difficult to add more relevant images. However, rather than taking the trouble to screenshot each imperfect portal and upload it to Commons with an insulting title to ridicule hard-working colleagues, perhaps it would be more helpful to report such errors politely to the WikiProject responsible for improving portals. Certes (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Oh, you mean the project which actively monitors these low maintenance portals and is seeking out and correcting errors? If you find it, please post a link to it. Meanwhile, with many easy to find errors still remaining in many portals, and easy to find duplicate portals not being touched by this supposedly active project, and so on and so on, I continue to nominate many deficient portals for deletion, and upload a few of the worst elements to Commons as evidence, as it is uncertain from one day to another how these portals will look (since even adding or removing one category from them may change their actual look). Fram (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Though I'm not actively involved with portals these days, I do seek out and correct errors, and I'm not the only one. This afternoon I've been seeking and fixing the redlinks left lying around after the latest portal deletion spree. However, I can hardly blame the project for losing morale when picked on by a group of determined editors whose contribution to Wikipedia consists mainly of criticising other editors and deleting their work. Certes (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC) So the portal people didn't maintain (check and correct) these portals between, say, August 2018 and February 2019 because from then on some people would start deleting "their" work (most of the deleted and nominated portals are actually the work of one editor only)? And of course, we aren't really deleting any "work", no actual effort went into these portals (effort went into the tools to create them, but the actual portal creations were mindless, careless, button-pushing stuff). Fram (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC) 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. (Will try and update one of the portals right now.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Comment I tried to fix the Revolution portal and couldn't. My assumption is it's broken due to some code issue - looks to me like there's a stray } in there which causes the slideshow not to work properly, since it occasionally works in preview mode. I did add photos to the Diamondbacks portal. These can be cleaned up, and they all clearly pass WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) SportingFlyer, "can be cleaned up" is correct for many TTH created portals. However, essentially it is not more work than restarting the portal from scratch. As we have thousands of these portals, fixing them all is going to require a dedicated effort by many people, and then maintenance is going to be required going forward (it has been demonstrated clearly that automated portals are not "zero maintenance", and require careful monitoring of the articles and navboxes they are based on). So "can be cleaned up" isn't quite enough for me -- would you be willing to maintain these portals or can you find someone who will? (As I said in my vote above, these could be viable portals, but not without someone putting in the work). —Kusma (t·c) 19:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC) @Kusma: Having played around with these for 20 minutes, I'm not sure what needs to be done specifically to clean these up, apart from fixing the code issue I mentioned. Do they just need to be monitored? Keep in mind I wouldn't necessarily be against bulk deletion if portals have run their course, but as for now they pass WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC) SportingFlyer, personally I support keeping almost all portals that have had some thought and work put into them, unless the topic is completely hopeless. The semiautomatic creations by TTH do not qualify for that. As a starting point, I think that an effective portal about a sports team is most likely going to be a bit different from a good portal about a country, or about a scientific discipline. Some creativity is going to be required for anything that is more than a clickthrough of a navbox that gives us loosely connected random articles that fail both as a semi-structured way of navigating the topic and as enticing teasers making you explore things you didn't know you were interested in. For sports portals, the current season standings should possibly be in the portal if possible (selective transclusion could do that I guess, or shared templates). Something like that will require an update whenever the "current season" changes. —Kusma (t·c) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC) @Kusma: That's fair and something to work towards. Let me see if I can do that for the Revolution. I also didn't realise these were bot-created in late 2018, that hadn't been mentioned and while it would change my vote in a majority of instances, I don't see a problem with expanding these particular portals - they would be something that I would expect to be recreated if we bulk deleted all of the Transhumanist articles. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC) I've updated the New England Revolution portal with the current season table and current roster. It's still broken sometimes and I don't know how to fix that. SportingFlyer T·C 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC) When it works, this is a very nice step forward. Just sad that it doesn't work consistently. I asked at Module talk:Excerpt, maybe we can get some expert advice. Probably one of the articles involved does something that the module isn't escaping correctly. —Kusma (t·c) 08:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC) There's a way to fix it which I figured out yesterday, I just need a few days to implement since life'll get in the way. SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Never mind, fixed the Revolution portal. It should be fine for awhile. Though I can't figure out the colours generally :\ SportingFlyer T·C 22:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Delete all 4 a single, recently formed sports team does not meet the breadth-of-subject area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Delete all 4. Three of them — Portal:Dallas Stars, Portal:Arizona Diamondbacks and Portal:Nashville Predators — are just automated spam, created by the portalspammer @The Transhumanist. It is ridiculous that the community is forced to have lengthy discussions on even batched groups of this spam, when the portsalspammer created them in seconds simply by typing {{subst:quick portal}} (or a similar template). I have checked each of the portals, and every one draws its article list solely from a single navbox. This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because: the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time. the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page. The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes: both the topic navbox and any related navboxes A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede. The 4th one, Portal:New England Revolution is handmade but still useless. It offers nothing that isn't on the head article, but which is a much better navigational hub. As noted above, readers simply don't use these portals. The total (not per-day) viewing figures for the firts three months of 2019 are uniformly absymal: Portal:New England Revolution: total of 22 views in 3 months Portal:Nashville Predators: total of 33 views in 3 months Portal:Arizona Diamondbacks: total of 57 views in 3 months Portal:Dallas Stars: total of 26 views in 3 months Per WP:POG, portals should be about broad-scope topics. And yet again, the evidence is very clear that readers do not want these narrow-scope portals. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

March 26, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adele

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 . A fair portion of the participation here boils down to either "Single BLPs can have a portal" or "Single BLPs should (generally) not have a portal." While I look forward to continuing to figure out the balance there, there are other arguments. Those favoring keep cite the ever-popular WP:POG, which is not gospel. Those favoring delete make similarly-flawed arguments. In the end, I think the keeps have the stronger arguments and evidence in this particular situation. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Portal:Adele[edit] Portal:Adele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Single artist portal. Created before the WP:X3 spree but we are gaining consensus that individuals and BLPs don't warrant portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Comment. I'm not going to repeat this n times but I do not agree that no individual warrants a portal, nor even that no living person warrants a portal. (If you wanted to test where consensus lies on the latter, try nominating, say, Portal:Donald Trump and notifying the relevant wikiprojects.) No strong opinion here but, on a quick check, the topic appears to meet the 20+ non-stub articles and the portal was created in Jan 2016, before The Transhumanist's involvement, and could be rolled back to an earlier version if that is better. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Donald Trump warrants a portal (if we have portals). There is enough depth and breadth of articles and reader and editor interest around any recent US President. Portal:Queen Elizabeth II would be ok too. A musician or artist is just a personal business. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Keep – Meets WP:POG. North America1000 02:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Keep Meets WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC) How? Beyond pages on her works, what is there to warrant a portal topic here? Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC) One of the most popular performers in the entire world should be enough to pass WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Popularity suggest notability, which is not what we are debating here. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC) What are we debating here, exactly? Under what grounds, exactly, should this be deleted? It's really hard to debate against WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Keep. "We are gaining consensus" is not enough. wumbolo ^^^ 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Sure it is, we have deleted a series of single person portals as well as single band, single company etc. Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Weak Delete - I like her music. That is a reason for me to listen to it, not to have a portal. This illustrates that the pre-existence of a portal is not a reason to keep it. (In any case, it has been touched by the portal people, which is not a reason to delete, but a reason to be worth considering deleting.) Individual performers don't need portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC) As a side note, check out WP:WEDONTNEEDIT. North America1000 01:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Delete Not a broad enough topic, as is required by WP:POG. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC) Keep - has a great many articles, hugely notable artist. Again, "We are gaining consensus" is not enough. ɱ (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC) There is some depth to the articles here but not enough breadth. It is a narrow area of a topic. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Delete. Portals for individual people are unnecessarily fine-grained and do not provide any useful navigational or organizational service to the reader not already provided by the article itself and the pereson's navbox. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Keep. This is a well-made portal on a popular topic with sufficient content to present. The deletion rationale is flawed. We are not gaining consensus that individuals and BLPs don't warrant portals: even the nominator freely admits that Portal:Donald Trump is justified. Whether any particular individual warrants a portal is a legitimate matter for debate. The still-active editor who created this portal three years ago felt that Adele does. Even destroying all work of WikiProject Portals on principle would not be a valid reason for deletion, because that aim that could be achieved less disruptively by rolling back to the 2016 version. Certes (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC) There is a difference between a recording artist where the scope is her bio and albums and a President of the United States where there are numerous articles about the Administration, policies, scandals etc. That is the whole point. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Isn't that a logical fallacy though? There are enough articles on her to have a portal about, and this was not one of the "problematic" automated portals. SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Delete. A single DYK from January 2018. Links to sister Wikis have some Adele related stuff, and loads of things not about this Adele. POrtals like this are not a service to our readers, but a distraction of better content presentations (the actual articles) and navigation tools. Alternatively, revert to the pre-"automated" version (restoring the necessary subpages) may be a viable option as well. Fram (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion; it is not a guideline or policy. As such, whether or not a portal was created before or after the discussion commenced is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America1000 09:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Delete – for the reasons stated by PMC (BLPs aren't broad enough) and Fram (one DYK nom, distracts from better content presentations). Leviv ich 05:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Delete - Yes Adele is a notable artist but this mass generated portal is simply not useful at all. It's basically part of the lead of Adele's main article and the navbox found at the bottom of Adele related articles. Meszzy2 (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC) 7 Deletes and 5 Keeps to this point and closure is overdue Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC) WP:NOTAVOTE —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Someone should delete NOTAVOTE as it is only ever quoted by the minority in a discussion. Legacypac (talk) Hahahahaha. The keeps have it 8–7 though. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Only because closures are running a couple weeks behind schedule. Give this discussion another couple weeks and we will get to delete. Anyway WP:NOTAVOTE applies :) Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Keep - There are several articles about Adele, and WP:POG is met.--NØ 16:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Keep. Seems appropriate to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Keep. Adele is a popular singer and as such has more than enough material to warrant a portal. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC) 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.

March 24, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sexual fetishism

March 19, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

March 16, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California

March 13, 2019[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples

Closed discussions[edit]