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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Compostela Group of Universities[edit]

Portal:Compostela Group of Universities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another pointless portal, on a relatively obscure inter-university association. Yes, there are >60 articles, but the fact that there are more pages than some of the micro-portalks recently listed doesn't alter the fact that there is little to say about this grouping other than to list its members (see Compostela Group of Universities) ... so the portal can never be more than a glorified navbox.this time BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Compostela Group of Universities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Being perceived as "obscure" is not a reason for deletion, and a portal is not just a list of articles - a point which the nominator seems unable or unwilling to understand. WaggersTALK 11:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Godsy et el. –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and allow time for potential expansion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Article selection.    — The Transhumanist   19:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows).    — The Transhumanist   03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - We don't need a large number of new unmaintained portals, and it is clear that the maintenance, which is specified as a requirement in the guidelines, will not be done, because the category hasn't even been populated. !Voting is getting tiresome and will be done on further categories by writing a template to substitute. At least writing a text template is fun, and apparently the author of these portals is merely having fun and not trying to improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really reasonable to expect a portal creator to "maintain" the portal after it's been nominated for deletion? It was created on 9 September 2018‎ and was nominated here on 25 September 2018‎. Personally, if I had created it, I would wait until the deletion discussion has finished, because it would be counterproductive and a waste of one's time to work on a page that is subsequently deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintenance of the portal is automatic, by design. It uses selective transclusions so that the excerpts don't go stale (they always match their sources), and the slideshow selections automatically update as the selection included in the sourcepages is expanded. Robert McClenon implied that the portal does not improve the encyclopedia. Does he have a way of substantiating that statement? I believe that slideshows are a convenient way to browse the topics of a subject, and therefore portals that have them enhance the encyclopedia.    — The Transhumanist   19:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on portal creation criteria[edit]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 16:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.