- 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 . No prejudice against renomination, perhaps after the Portal guideline is established. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Portal:Canton, Michigan
Yet another pointless drive-by creation of a micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal. Its contents appear to consistent only of 7 articles listed in Template:Canton, Michigan. A tiny set such as this is better served by a head article and a navbox; in fact per WP:NENAN it is only just big enough to qualifies for a navbox. We already have both: Canton, Michigan and Template:Canton, Michigan. Portals shoud be used for briader fields with a much larger article set, such as a county or a region ... but indivudual towns need portals only in the where there is extensive coverage of the town, and a where a navbox could include only a s small subset. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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) 12:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep There are many more articles that could be added to the portal, such as the notable people from the area, so the scope isn't as small as the nominator suggests. Previously I don't think a subject like this would merit a portal but the new lightweight portal design, together with the ease of setting up features like "Recent Events" and "Did you know", changes that somewhat. If there really were only 7 associated articles then I'd agree the scope is too narrow, but the number of wikilinks in the lead article suggests that is not the case.
Waggers
TALK 13:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ Waggers: The chances of recent event articles or DYKs on such a narrow topic area are so utterly remote that they can be discounted.
- Category:People from Canton, Michigan contains only 18 articles, so the scope remains tiny.
- As to
the number of wikilinks in the lead article
, apart from the 18 people I see no more than about a dozen which would be directly within scope, unless you want to pad out the portal with links to articles on the rest of Michigan. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)- Fair points on DYK/ITN, but adding the 18 biographies into the mix creates a basis of 25 articles, which is a wide enough scope to warrant a portal in my opinion. As User:Godsy points out, without an agreed guideline we're reliant on individuals' judgement; personally I would set the bar at around 10 selected articles. Waggers TALK 12:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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) 21:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with
Godsy that this cannot be managed effectively without a suitable guideline, so either Keep or Hold until a guideline has been established. · · ·
Peter (Southwood)
(talk):
- @ Godsy and Pbsouthwood: A guildeline for this has been established, while the practice has been even lower. The threshold is set at "about 20 articles" in Wikipedia:Portal guidelines, many portals created before April 2018 don't even have that many. — The Transhumanist 19:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with
Godsy that this cannot be managed effectively without a suitable guideline, so either Keep or Hold until a guideline has been established. · · ·
Peter (Southwood)
(talk):
- Comment - There is already a statement that 20 articles is a recommended minimum. Until that is changed, Delete anything else. This seems to be an effort to ram large numbers of portals through in order to ossify policy. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reference. That threshold can be found at Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Article selection. — The Transhumanist 19:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
*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)
- Delete per WP:IAR (or, rather, common sense in a situation where there are a lack of rules); it's inconceivable that there will be a justification for this being separate from a portal on Detroit. One of many creations by The Transhumanist and no evidence that any contributors or readers will be harmed by its deletion. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – A useful navigational aid for readers interested in the topic. Also, it was just created this month, perhaps consider allowing time for it to be expanded, rather than removing it so quickly. North America 1000 02:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes ( talk) 00:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows). — The Transhumanist 03:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Not sufficiently wide a scope for a portal. Bermicourt ( talk) 08:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Extremely narrow scope. – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - The category associated with this portal is empty. This implies that this portal is not likely to be properly maintained in the future either. This is yet another portal that has been recently created in spite of the lack of consensus in the community that we need portals at all, let alone that we need this portal. There is no evidence that this portal will actually be maintained, when the originator is simply creating a large number of unrelated portals, possibly because creating portals is fun. Rather than keeping yet another portal until we can agree on guidelines, we should delete new portals that are not clearly needed until we can agree on guidelines. ~~
- It may also mean that the category simply hasn't been created yet. — The Transhumanist 19:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion on portal creation criteria
– 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)
- 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.