Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD
  • Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.
Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
  • Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
  • Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
  • Save the page
II.
Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

  • Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
  • Insert this text:
{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.
  • Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
III.
Add a line to MfD.

Follow   this edit link   and add a line to the top of the list:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".
  • Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
    Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
    replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
  • Save the page.
  • If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add
{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.
  • If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
    For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

    {{subst:MFDWarning|PageName}} ~~~~

    to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

    Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

    replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
  • If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
  • If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions[edit]

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Contents

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.

March 22, 2019[edit]

Assorted Mammal Portals[edit]

Portal:Pigs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Rabbits and hares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Cetaceans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Bears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We don't need Portal:Pigs, Portal:Cetaceans, or Portal:Rabbits and hares if we have Portal:Mammals. I leave it to others whether we need a mammal portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time right now but Portal:Mammals is about the right level of depth in my view. We don't need Portal:Cows Portal:Horses Portal:Bears, Portal:Donkeys and so on (just to pick some examples I have not checked) Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Plutarch[edit]

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

Insufficent scope for a portal per WP:POG. Category:Plutarch and Category:Works by Plutarch have 7 articles between them. The "selected articles" section has been bulked out with articles on historical figures Plutarch wrote about, which I don't think is a coherent topic. Hut 8.5 20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Assorted Mammal Portals[edit]

Portal:Pigs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Rabbits and hares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Cetaceans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Bears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Horses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We don't need Portal:Pigs, Portal:Cetaceans, or Portal:Rabbits and hares if we have Portal:Mammals. I leave it to others whether we need a mammal portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time right now but Portal:Mammals is about the right level of depth in my view. We don't need Portal:Cows Portal:Horses Portal:Bears, Portal:Donkeys and so on (just to pick some examples I have not checked) Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Frogs and toads[edit]

Portal:Frogs and toads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Salamanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We don't need Frogs and Toads or Salamanders as portals if we also have Portal:Amphibians. I leave it up to others whether we need an amphibian portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all overlaps a long standing existing portal. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chino, California[edit]

Portal:Chino, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

Portal:Burlington, Vermont[edit]

Portal:Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

Portal:Jane Goodall[edit]

Portal:Jane Goodall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:POG as insufficiently broad scope for a portal. There are 19 articles in scope. Only three articles are above start class and eligible for inclusion in the selected articles section: Primatology, Great Ape Project and Kasakela chimpanzee community (I think the first two are dubious). The automated script used to create the portal has done a very poor job and most of the "selected articles" are about awards Goodall has received or universities which have given her honorary degrees. Hut 8.5 19:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete few if any individuals should have portals. This shows why even a very famous person is a poor portal topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Being a great scientist or great writer or whatever is more than enough reason for an article. We are not debating the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Outline of lists[edit]

Draft:Outline of lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A pretty useless outline of a navigation aid. There are way too many lists on Wikipedia to summarize on a page. We have Lists of lists of lists already. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - My first thought on reading this outline thing was "Huhh??". This is in draft space, and will never be a useful article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Windows 10[edit]

Portal:Windows 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal so bare-bones it doesn't look complete. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete why a portal on an individual product? Too narrow. I don't believe even individual companies justify portals. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because it is too narrow, but because, as the nominator says, it is a barebones ugly portal that looks unfinished. At least some of us are using this product to !vote on this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alexz Johnson[edit]

Portal:Alexz Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It took 11 edits over haf a year to produce a portal with in default view the same image three times, with the same article as "introduction" and default "selected general article", with a "subcategories" section which doesn't even have a category, never mind subcategories, with other selected articles which are tagged for not meeting the notability guidelines (not surprising, as they are demo tapes with little or no reliable sources about them), ... An example of everything a portal should not be. But automated and easy to maintain! Fram (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete One of the worst portals I have ever seen. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete epic failure Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another one-person portal that doesn't have a reason to have a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlike many other current nominations, this one is indeed too narrow a scope for a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Albany, California[edit]

Portal:Albany, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Albany, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too small a city, and too small a pool of articles, to sustain a viable portal. Fram (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete too small a topic Legacypac (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and add another city with the same name, even though the one in New York is more important. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Even Albany NY is under 100,000 people which is a significant tracking threshhold used by the UN, Wikipedia and others. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes; Albany, New York is a state capital, and still does not need a portal. We haven't considered whether portals are in order for US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states, Mexican states, German Lander, etc., which are politically and historically significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of drink[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of drink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"What type of thing is drink? Drink can be described as all of the following: " I love the section "Persons influential in drink". Rather unlikely that this will become a real, useful outline ever. Fram (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I've filled in the first blank on what kind of thing drink is. Do some people have no idea you can drink liquids? I've bundled outline of food same creator same problems. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you are unfamiliar with ingesting liquids, then you either are compliant with the bot policy and should not be !~voting, or your are a non-compliant bot, and should not be editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete a very unfinished list thingy that may never be finished. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:The Ohio State University[edit]

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

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. Generally Indon'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)

Portal:Starbucks[edit]

Portal:Starbucks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Newer portal built from the basic portal start page by another editor, so not subject to X3 as currently proposed. Should be deleted like the others as a derivative work of the ill conceived mass creation effort. Same kind of reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As Legacypac says, created by a different author, but touched by the original author, who apparently has a reverse Midas touch. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – there are quite a few articles on or related to Starbucks, and this portal is a convenient navigation tool for surveying them. You can click through their leads until you come to one that you want to read in more depth – exactly what the slideshows were designed for: a browsing aid. Notability pertains to subjects, not to pages about them, and Starbucks is notable. Legacypac is confusing notability with scope, and scope is covered in the Portals guideline. This portal's subject far exceeds the scope required for a portal. Note that Legacypac is using this page as a venue to object to portals in general, which is not the purpose of MfD, and violates WP:FORUMSHOP. He's already stated his case against portals in the thread link he provide above. He hasn't provided any valid reasons for deletion, as the portal does not violate any Wikipedia rule, and follows all portal guidelines.-- Happypillsjr 11:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not confusing anything. This violates the existing guidelines and most likely will violate any new guideline that make it through a RFC based on the comments made in various venues. Starbucks is a notable topic, but an automated portal does a poor job of presenting any topic. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of numerous editors at Village Pump, AN and many MfDs of Portals that are still on this page and recently closed. Created with the same template/tools as the portals for which X3 applies - that is a darn good reason to consider deletion. The only difference here is the editor who hit save to create the page. Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Not seeing a valid rationale for deletion in the nomination, which consists entirely of an I don't like it rationale, and contains no analysis of the portal's actual content. North America1000 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The portal functions as a useful navigational aid for those who choose to use portals. North America1000 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I have created some portals, but I did not create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Also, I have added some info. to my !vote above. North America1000 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, far too small a topic area to be of any use to readers. ♠PMC(talk) 13:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POG portals should be about broad topic areas and should have enough articles above start class to populate the featured content section. Starbucks is not a broad topic area and the featured content section is mostly populated with start- and stub-class articles, although it also has the main Starbucks article featured and a GA bio which barely even mentions Starbucks. Hut 8.5 08:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. The nomination seems to be principally a series of ad hominems and I don't like portals that I don't like. This is at the narrow end of broad enough to sustain a portal, so a merge to a portal about coffee shop chains or coffee shop culture might be better but it is good enough on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You can't merge to a nonexistant target like Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute? Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

March 21, 2019[edit]

Portal:Abuse[edit]

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

Grab bag of topics around a dictionary word. So broad a group of possible topics it is useless. A basic wikipedia search with even a little distinction would be a better way to navigate to what a reader is really interested in. This page was listed at AN as " This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it." Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Keep, expand what is there. Enough dioceses have admitted neglect and cover-ups. The current nomination can be viewed as a cover-up. Would you like me to cite my local paper? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to fill in some blanks here if you like --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
They have articles here, by the way. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The portal reads with items which are apropos of abuse. What is the problem? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Meets WP:POG. The article is not a dicdef and neither is the portal. Furthermore, I'm having no problems with display errors as stated in the nomination. Maybe try using a different browser? North America1000 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The dosplay errors part was reported at AN in the WP:X3 discussion. I'm not seeing errors but I see a very disjointed selection of articles and DYK etc that happen to include the word abuse. Mimd of weird choice for a portal topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The topic was suppressed for decades; the problem spans social classes; 'weird' bespeaks a blind spot in our reconstruction of our world. It helps to have a diverse selection of editors in the search for appropriate coverage. Meaning it doesn't help to delete anything and everything that does not fit our personal reconstruction of what we believe. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Upon further consideration, I have struck my !vote above. North America1000 08:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
You have a point. This contains unreferenced BLP material and since portals never have references that's a problem. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The archbishop is now deceased; that's in our article about the prelate. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Ancheta Wis - Which archbishop is now deceased? I was referring to Theodore McCarrick and George Pell, who are both living, one of whom is currently an archbishop, and the other of whom was until recently an archbishop, and Harvey Weinstein, who is living and was never a priest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
William Edward Cousins —now dead— was the archbishop for whom 'Cousins center' in Milwaukee was named. That building is to be renamed, today,[2] apparently. Archbishop Cousins never laicized (meaning defrocked) the priests who sexually abused their flocks. However the archbishops have paid out enough in damages to force the archdiocese of Milwaukee into bankruptcy. And now there is quite a list of laicized men on their website; so you can argue the archdiocese has repented their coverup. (Archbishop Listecki —the current prelate— is to be commended for owning up to the situation). I actually never was aware of these details until I read about it in the paper, and then followed up on the portal deletion thread. Maybe today we will find out the new name for 'Cousins center'. I will post it on this thread for completeness. I can't speak for Pell etc and I don't have the time to document any other abuse of trust, other than to state that abuse is a syndrome (Abuse --> Neglect --> Cycle of despair --> on and on .. Suicide .. I forbear from continuing). We can do better than this, obviously. But the topic is not well understood and abusers will always be with us unless people take a stand. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The BLP argument is a strong one. Portals often include living people but rarely focus on negative aspects of their lives. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Snippets of some of these topics is not an ideal way to present with no refs and little context. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Crosscutting, like naming, is a literary technique, a doorway to another world, sometimes hidden or in shadow.[2] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against creation of portals about specific types of abuse that do not mix drug abuse and child abuse just because they both contain the word "abuse". —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
.:Doxing is one of the featured articles. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, what was the reasoning? The portal is neutral: it crosscuts multiple kinds of abuse with a database query. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above, the argument to keep this portal is "cover up!!! censorship!!! right great wrongs!!!" CoolSkittle (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Minimisation (psychology) is a featured article. Off topic - this is a mess. No one is trying to censure anything. We are discussing the wisdom of a portal vs letting the articles do the job. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    Count me out; I refuse to work on the dark side of the human condition, thank you very much. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (But I would have worked on the portal) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles to improve. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alvarezsauroidea[edit]

Portal:Alvarezsauroidea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Oviraptorosauria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Troodontidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a type of dinosaur. Portal fails WP:POG as it isn't a broad topic area and none of the articles in scope are above start-class. Also there is no linked category and the one "selected image" is repeated from earlier in the page. Hut 8.5 19:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. The best way to describe this is: [1] pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with a meteor. An asteroid would cause collateral damage, as we know. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete make it extinct. I've bundled additional pages created at the same time by the same user with exactly the same issues. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Billy the Kid[edit]

Portal:Billy the Kid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:POG portals should be about broad topics. The scope of this one is cultural depictions of Billy the Kid, along with a few people who had some sort of connection to him. There are quite a few of these but not nearly enough to make it a broad topic. Hut 8.5 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per non. Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete although the chirality of the image is interesting, that isn't a reason for a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete no portals about individuals. Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that's a bit harsh. I'm not sure about deleting, say, Portal:Shakespeare. But Billy the Kid isn't nearly that influential. Hut 8.5 07:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Democratic Plantation[edit]

Draft:Democratic Plantation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was put in mainspace and then speedy deleted Democratic plantationas housekeeping. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seek_community_sanctions_(indef_Tban)_re_user_Bought_the_farm which is weighing the merits of a TBAN from this and related topics or an INDEF. Deletion of this draft is housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as OR and pushing non-notable and poorly sourced conspiracy theories. We are not a free web hosting service for publishing and editors' private vendettas against their ideological enemies. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Not WP:OR and not a conspiracy theory. It is a criticism of the relationship that the Democratic Party has with African-Americans. You obviously do not agree with that criticism and that's okay, but it has been used in reliable sources. We go by reliable sources (I believe that's a popular saying around here) Besides those in the article, here's a couple more:Chicago Tribune Yahoo News --Rusf10 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Will never make it to mainspace. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although the proponent insulted me, I am no longer abstaining. Deleting this draft is not housekeeping, but is a real MFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The draft has been declined only twice. Most of the concerns have been resolved, and others can be too by editing. "Housekeeping"?! wumbolo ^^^ 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation Topic does probably meet WP:GNG, but this draft is not a good starting point for the article. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Declined 3 times. Housekeeping because this user is not going to be allowed to continue the effort. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep- It's a notable topic backuped up by coverage in reliable sources. It can be edited to fix any concerns. Housekeeping is WP:CSD G6 (also called technical deletion). This isn't speedy deletion and it isn't uncontroversial (if it was there wouldn't be a need for a discussion). Therefore, housekeeping cannot possibly be a reason for deletion. Someone please provide an actual policy reason to delete (and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--Rusf10 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to another attempt So far it appears this word is a WP:NEOLOGISM, and so far this article has one-and-only-one RS that talks about the phrase itself. Per WP:NEOLOGISM we only have articles on notable neologisms, as established by quality secondary RSs. A single RS about a racially and politically charged neologism doesn't really establish the necessary threshold of notability in my mind. To cover an such an expression would be to lend our help to elevating it in the public eye, and we don't do that, especially for racially and politically charged neologisms. If neutral editors can establish that there are a number of quality secondary RSs that discuss the phrase itself, rather than just reporting that someone used the phrase, then maybe a neutral article could be started. But this POV push to trumpet the phrase in the public eye should be vaporized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Pipilo[edit]

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

A portal for a group of only six articles? Check! Repeating the image of the main article as the sole "selected image"? Check! A "subcategories" box without any subcategories? Check! Less than 1 pageview per day? Check! Another useless portal which doesn't even meet the standards of the portal project? Check! Fram (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete creator did not check before saving. WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Maybe the creator did check, and didn't care. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete X3 — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whatever one thinks of portals for larger taxons of animals, a single genus is not broad enough. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Peter Madsen[edit]

Portal:Peter Madsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A portal for a group of only seven articles? Check! Repeating the image of the main article as the sole "selected image"? Check! Another useless portal which doesn't even meet the standards of the portal project? Check! Fram (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of family and consumer science[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of family and consumer science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After 12 years, one would expect that this would either be finished enough to be placed in mainspace (where it resided for its first 5 years or so), or deleted. The actual state of it, with three articles in one section and a lot of empty sections otherwise, indicates that it is time to abandon and delete this one. Fram (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

DeleteNot providing any information for readers or editors.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete another halfbaked idea from the same source as all these useless portals. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think it is half-baked because I am not sure it ever went into the fire. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has had more than enough time to become a valid article, but it has not been improved to an acceptable state. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A nearly ten year old draft for an outline on a subject which doesn't even have an article. Fram (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete can we bundle these abandoned outline drafts (I'm using th term loosely as they were mass created sans content)? There are a whole lot of them.
  • Delete As Fram says, it doesn't even have an article. The Keepers should at least have created the article in August 2016, but, no, leaving outlines lying around is like leaving portals lying around and is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Goes with the spirit if not the letter of WP:G8. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 20:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Caué[edit]

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

A portal for a 6K inhabitants district of a very small country. A portal with a Lua Error, a redlink as "subcategories", and a staggering 17 pageviews in the last 90 days... Fram (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete red all over. Featured article for me is "Ponta Baleia (Portuguese for "whale point") is a headland and a settlement in the south of Caué District on São Tomé Island in São Tomé and Príncipe. Its population is 43 (2012 census)." Amazing... an article that barely meets WP:GEOLAND and should probably be be up merged to the district page. The creator says he made these in batches, previewing and discarding unsuitable pages. How can that be true if pages like this got past the review? Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Hardly worth the delete !vote, but the alternative would be portals that aren't worth it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A handful of articles, at least two of which are untagged stubs, and a Lua error because no images are supplied. This should never have been created in this state. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, not worth discussing. —Kusma (t·c) 09:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bottled water[edit]

Portal:Bottled water (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Energy drinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Soft drinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Way too narrow scope for these portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

North America1000 04:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all too narrow a scope for portals. Would not attract either wide reader or editor involvement. These topics are better handled in articles. The readers overwealmingly prefer the articles. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Redirects should be from article topics to article topics. The principle that redirects are cheap should not apply in portal space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with water, whether pure or flavored. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Redirects in Portal space are clutter. Hard to manage them because they look like Duplicate portals on the lists. Unlike article redirects that are often used contextually in articles, portal redirects are almost never used for inbound internal links. Search does a much better job for a reader then for us to guess what a reader might type. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nimika Ratnakar[edit]

Draft:Nimika Ratnakar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ratnakar nimika/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Actress Nimika Ratnakar/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

At least three copies of the autobiography of this actress have been submitted by at least two accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Actress Nimika Ratnakar has also been filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The first three sources at User:Ratnakar nimika/sandbox easily sustain a draft, and are possibly good enough alone to justify mainspacing. Respond to duplicates by redirecting. I suggest by default to redirect the new to the old, discourage new forks by sending the authors back to the first page. Remnd them of WP:MOVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears that User:SmokeyJoe and I are in disagreement on two points. The first is whether spamming multiple copies of a draft is enough of an annoyance to the reviewers to warrant deleting the main copy of the draft, or at least a reason to consider deleting the draft (as opposed to redirecting the extra copies). The second is how and whether to enforce the autobiography policy in itself, whether we should help submitters with their autobiographies, pretend the authobiographies don't exist and let them expire, or take the conflict of interest into account as a deletion reason. If he is disagreeing on one of those points, then he and I disagree. If there is something else, please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Q. The first is whether spamming multiple copies of a draft is enough of an annoyance to the reviewers to warrant deleting the main copy of the draft, or at least a reason to consider deleting the draft (as opposed to redirecting the extra copies).
A. Premise nitpick: You are using "spamming" loosely, like the kids do. A handful is not spamming. I will assume that a normal meaning of "spamming" is not meant here.
A. No. A few redundant page creations does not warrant deletion, per policy, clearly written, at WP:ATD. "Redirect" is the answer. Come back to MfD only if reverted or explicitly disagreed with.
Q. how and whether to enforce the autobiography policy in itself,
A. Nitpick answer. Wikipedia:Autobiography is not a policy, but a guideline. And as a guideline, it is not even referenced from WP:Deletion policy, unlike WP:N, WP:DEL8. The person disagreeing with me in not appearing conversant with deletion policy.
A. Wikipedia:Autobiography is weakly worded advice that people can ignore. It is good advice, because autobiography writers seem to always have terrible problems with selecting independent sources. If someone were to propose strengthening Wikipedia:Autobiography to give it teeth, I would support. Until then, its status is less than WP:PRESERVE (Policy), which speaks against deleting anything potentially useful.
A. Yes, put them through WP:COI. WP:COI has some teeth, unlike Wikipedia:Autobiography. See my edits earlier this year to WP:COI, these edits stuck. Directrly editing a page with which you have an interest violates the behavioural guideline and thus is a reason for WP:BLOCKing. It is not, however, a reason for deletion.
The something else that he is missing is sources that are plausibly good enough to sustain a claim of notability and meet WP:STUB is a strong reason to keep as a draft, and is a reason to consider mainspace, whatever the other concerns, barring WP:CSD#G5 and WP:CSD#G12. This draft has such sources.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete blow it out as self promotion across multiple pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20, 2019[edit]

Portal:Al Jolson[edit]

Portal:Al Jolson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too narrow a focus for a portal. Individual entertainers don't need portals that make a poor substitute for their article.

► Al Jolson
no subcategories

sums this up. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. While this appears to have >20 articles, nearly all of the articles in the template that I sampled, except for Al Jolson itself, are stubs or poorly developed articles, mainly focused on listing notable recordings by people other than Jolson. Some do not even mention Jolson in the summary extract ("The song became the signature song for singer and actress Lillian Roth..."). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another single-person portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Edward VIII abdication crisis[edit]

Portal:Edward VIII abdication crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overly narrow scope per WP:POG. There are 31 articles in the relevant category and some are pretty tenous for inclusion here, e.g. Wedding dress of Wallis Warfield, or Michael Joseph Savage (which barely mentions the crisis at all). Hut 8.5 22:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete what the heck was the creator thinking? No need for a portal on this topic. Not even sure we would need Portal:Edward VIII Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many of these articles are of peripheral relevance. This seems like the sort of constrained topic that is well suited to articles and not at all to portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nom that this is too narrow a topic. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - We can guess that the creator was thinking that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Men at Work[edit]

Portal:Men at Work (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just barely passes WP:WPPORT's recommendation of 20 related articles (it has 21 listed in "topics"), but clearly not a big enough portal topic seeing as it has no selected images. This portal had better run and better take cover. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, not enough thought has gone into this portal. If you don't have any images, how about not including a "selected images" section and finding something else instead? —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed empty section removed.    — The Transhumanist   18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Make that yellow tickY Partly done. There are still no selected images, and that doesn’t reflect well on this portal. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the article does a better job of covering the topic then any design of portal could. The article links all the sub articles on albums and songs for a band. The article hosts available photos just fine. A portal is just a distraction that fails the reader - and the readers have spoken. The article got 25,300+ pages views in the last 30 days while this portal got 11 page views in the same 30 days (at least three of which are from the people discussing it here, and the rest are likely bots and web crawlers.). Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fixing bugs in an unnecessary portal is a waste of bug-fixing time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chivas USA[edit]

Portal:Chivas USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Defunct soccer club in the US of all places + 7 acceptable selected articles + 10 season articles that show up in selected article + 2 selected pictures = delete. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Exton, Pennsylvania[edit]

Portal:Exton, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:POG with flying colors. This is the most pointless town portal I’ve ever seen. CDP with population 4842?!? SMH. Also has the dubious honor of less than 1 view/day (10 in last 30 days, 58 in the 7 months it has existed), most of which are probably 1) web crawlers and 2) me seeing how unsuitable this portal is. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete and the creator of this portal spam should explain why they made this. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is worse than even the template makes it appear -- several of the articles refer to the county, not the town, one is redirected to the main town article, and others are stubs (some not tagged as such) or orange tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with coal Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya[edit]

Portal:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominating for deletion, as this portal does not meet the minimum requirements at WP:POG:

North America1000 11:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

How so? Less than 20 related articles (a very low bar) . Not a wide topic that attracts editors. Viewing stats show it does not attract readers. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
"This page outlines general guidelines and best practices for portals."
Required:
  • Introduction ☑Y
  • Categories☑Y
  • Subportals or Related Portals ☑Y
  • Topics☑Y
  • Selected article☑Y
--Auric talk 21:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is true that this is a legacy portal, but legacy portals should not be exempt from review, and even one of the portal people is favoring deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Burlingame, California[edit]

Portal:Burlingame, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Random city in California population 28,000. No point of a portal. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:POG as far too narrow. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because a navbox exists doesn't mean a portal is warranted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just because a navbox exists doesn't mean a navbox is warranted, let alone a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19, 2019[edit]

Portal:Aaron Sorkin[edit]

Portal:Aaron Sorkin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too narrow a topic for a portal and it doesn't meaningfully expand on the main article/template. The contents are: the lead of Aaron Sorkin, selected articles which are all in Template:Aaron Sorkin as things he wrote or co-wrote (I count 16), two pictures of Sorkin, one of which is displayed a second time at greater resolution in case you missed it earlier, plus some portal boilerplate. Hut 8.5 23:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Basically no individual needs a portal. The article is the better way to see their life and work. Portal: 14 page views. Article 73,280 page views. Pretty clear what readers find more userful. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think a few single-person portals can be valuable, but here there does not seem to be enough material to support one. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes maybe on a recent US President or some other nearly as famous world leader or maybe Shakespeare but not for every actor, writer, singer etc that passes WP:BIO Legacypac (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The principle here appears to be that every BLP deserves a portal. Well, I disagree. If that isn't the principle, maybe the portal people can explain what is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Bird Family Portals 2: Electric Boogaloo[edit]

Portal:Psittacinae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Petroicidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Anchiornithidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Callaeidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Otididae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Sulidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Threskiornithidae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More portals of the same type:

Portal:New World vultures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Old World vultures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Frigatebirds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Peucaea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We do not need a portal for every family of bird. Per WP:POG, “portals should be about broad subject areas”. Related MfDs: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Woodpeckers, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanagers, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete just like the others. These are for the birds - articles are better. The only info on Portal:Psittacinae tells us there is 11 species in the subfamily => fails the WP:POG the creators wrote. No 20 articles, no portal. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Psittacinae should be Merged with Portal:Parrots, Parrots and Parakeets should only have one portal.Catfurball (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Portal:Callaeidae and Portal:Sulidae they are way to small.Catfurball (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. It is to be noted that even portal people are starting to support deleting some of the portals, which just shows that the establishment of these portals was done indiscriminately. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Good lord, Callaeidae? Really? Anyway, yes please delete per previous rationale. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
When two bird editors want bird portals deleted.... I added Portal:Frigatebirds Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
My god! Peucaea! a freaking genus? How many obscure taxa have portals? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
"My god" is right. 4 nonstub articles on the topic. FOUR! This is why P2 needs to be expanded. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:James Webb Space Telescope[edit]

Portal:James Webb Space Telescope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overly narrow scope for a portal, Category:James Webb Space Telescope and the one subcategory contain 12 articles. The portal has had to be bulked out with some other articles of dubious relevance, e.g. Canadian Space Agency is included because they're making one of the instruments on it. This information is better presented in the article than the portal, for instance the images make a lot more sense when displayed next to paragraphs of text which talk about the object depicted. Hut 8.5 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:POG. WP:P2 should be at 20 articles so none of these narrow topics would be created. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is too narrow a topic for a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above, and in view of the fact that the telescope isn't operational yet (literally has had a few screws loose). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:POG epicly. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Hilbert's problems[edit]

Portal:Hilbert's problems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Auto-generated portal which is inferior to the main article Hilbert's problems. It contains the lead from that article, a randomly selected problem (there's 23 in total and they're all listed in the article), links to Category:Hilbert's problems and Template:Hilbert's problems and some portal boilerplate. Does not meaningfully expand on the article and there's no scope for improvement. Hut 8.5 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete portals should make exploring a topic easier. This just adds a problem and more clicks to get answers. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a suitable topic for a portal. It's much better to present them as a list/table, as the article does. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not portal material. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not every historically important list of hypotheses needs a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bábism[edit]

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

Too limited sub-topic of Portal:Bahá'í Faith, viewed on average two times a day. Considering that all four sections of the default portal view are completely or partially about Baha'i anyway, and many of the other selections one can access to, there is hardly any need to have two separate portals. Fram (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment there used to be a pre-"automated" version of this portal that from the looks of it was substantially better and more focused. I think we should consider restoring it (which means restoring the deleted subpages). Can we get an admin to temp restore the subpages? It's really difficult to judge this portal based on its current inception instead of the original one. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete old version or new version, the topic is too narrow for a portal and it is duplicative. Legacypac (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The old portal had not been substantively edited since 2014, and looks to have been static. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Book Music & Lyrics[edit]

Draft:Book Music & Lyrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Book Music & Lyrics (BML) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are all kinds of accounts around these drafts. Looks like UPE or sockpuppetry. Earlier version removed from mainspace. Not notable in my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Would love an SI/CKU on this, something looks fishy. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ducks eat fish, and some fish eat ducks. Yes, the socks need to be inventoried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - One of the fish ate another of the fish. Delete the one that is still here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
One page deleted G13 during discussion. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portals, University of X at Y[edit]

List of bundled pages
Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Arkansas at Little Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Texas at Austin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Texas at Arlington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Texas at San Antonio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Texas at Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Texas at El Paso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Whitewater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–River Falls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin-Platteville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Green Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–Madison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Wisconsin–La Crosse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Nebraska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) exactly same campus and base page as Lincoln
Portal:University of Nebraska Omaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Nebraska at Kearney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Alaska Fairbanks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of North Carolina at Asheville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of North Carolina at Pembroke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of North Carolina at Charlotte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of North Carolina at Greensboro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of North Carolina at Wilmington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Missouri–St. Louis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Alabama at Birmingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Alabama in Huntsville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Houston System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Houston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of the Philippines Diliman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of the Philippines Los Baños (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of the Philippines Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California, Santa Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California, Irvine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of California, San Diego (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Hawaii at Hilo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Hawaii at Manoa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Louisiana at Monroe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Louisiana at Lafayette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:California State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:California State University, San Bernardino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Tennessee, Knoxville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Missed one:

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

 pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another pointless micro-portal, this time for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, a small and unfamed uni with only 2800 students in 2016.[2] The Category:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff contains only one article other than the head article, tho is there is asubcat on the inevitable sports team.
There are more biogs in the sub-Category:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff people, but it is doubtful whether they would be a useful addition to the portal.
The assiciated Template:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff is actually far more useful for navigation, because it appears on the relevant pages rather than requiring navigation to a separate page.
This is yet another product of The Transhumanist's batch-creation sprees. Now that it is abundantly clear that there is a strong community consensus against this portalspam, TTH's failure to assist the community by identifying and deleting their spam portals such as this is imposing an excessive cleanup burden on other editors. It indicates a deplorable lack of good faith. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all the University of X at Y. Do we really need a portal on each campus of the Univ of Wisconsin? No. I bundled pages that are essentially the same arguments to delete as the first example. For many schools we don't even allow articles for each campuses of a university so why a portal by campus? Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 08:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Do we need a portal for each of the 5,826,133 articles on Wikipedia as well? CoolSkittle (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no problem deleting this clump of portals. Portal:University is all we need here.--Auric talk 11:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the broad ones (e.g. Portal:University of California, and merge the specific ones (e.g. Portal:University of California, Los Angeles) into those portals. Portals about major educational institutions are viable but we should not get too specific. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What Thryduulf said. pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The bundling here is deceptive; the ones on a single prestigious university should not be bundled in with single campuses nor with lower-prestige institutions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Portal:University of California and California State University. Major public university systems, and these portals meet WP:POG. I agree that some of the bundling here is a bit incongruous. North America1000 04:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Notwithstanding that there may be some merit to a portal on a larger school, these were created indiscriminately and are poorly done. TNT is appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
TNT is not appropriate in the slightest - that is for where a single article or other page is best deleted and restarted, not for situations where you have many pages of varying quality. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:TNT is an essay, it's not a guideline or policy. North America1000 21:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Delete all.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Why? Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Thryduulf: Well, two !votes herein just say "delete" with no other qualification, and almost all have provided no policy- or guideline-based rationale. Almost all that's here so far are I don't like it-style arguments. Hopefully the closer will keep in mind that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, right? North America1000 23:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry! I don't see No make sense in the existence of a portal for a single thing, (a single biography, a single company, etc)Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Well firstly that's an "I don't like it" argument and secondly that doesn't even apply to all the nominated portals. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
            • @Thryduulf: It is not "I don't like it". Otherwise, there could be a portal for each wikipedia article.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
              • So there shouldn't be a portal for any "single thing", like Portal:United States, Portal:Geography, Portal:Atlantic Ocean, Portal:Queen (band), ...? You also haven't given any policy-based reasons why there shouldn't be a portal on "single things" just that you don't think there should be. Also note that Portal:University of California for example is about a system of universities not a single university any more than Portal:Education in Pakistan is about a single institution. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
                • "You also haven't given any policy-based reasons why there shouldn't be a portal on "single things""This is the point of conflict. There is no policy of notability for portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
                  • Quite. Would you now like to express an opinion regarding these portals that does reflect existing policies/guidelines and the actual nature of these portals? Or are you happy with your vague handwave towards a policy that doesn't exist based on an incorrect assumption about what has actually been nominated? Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion, prefer merging by state Wherever possible, merge all "University of X at Y" into "University of X." That would make for a better portal, which benefits the readers, and deleting them would prevent good-faith editors from performing such a merge. For example, I think it would have been better to merge all "Portal:University of Nebraska at ..." portals into "Portal:University of Nebraska" rather than first speedily deleting the latter and individually deleting all of the former. If merged, they could've been a decent portal, but deleting them all erases any chance in hell that they'll become a decent portal. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion sorting notices
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18, 2019[edit]

Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist)[edit]

Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete draft per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mher Khachatryan (artist) (2nd nomination) just a month ago. Issues with WP:SPA promo accounts pushing and voting for this artist. See comments on the AfD from established editors not the IPs. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete and Salt - With two article deletions, the only reason for keeping a draft (and not a good reason) is to permit unregistered editors to try to find a careless AFC reviewer to accept the draft. Recommend Extended-Confirmed Protection to allow an established neutral editor to develop an article without interference from unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Nanyang Technological University[edit]

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

This here's another pointless portal for a subject that doesn't warrant it. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete one of numerous university portals mass created. The articles do a much better job. Someone should bundle 50 or so University portals here. I've got other things to do tonight. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Yawn. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can think of ways to make a portal page for a university, but the automated ways used here don't add any value at all. —Kusma (t·c) 12:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete without textbooks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chickenpox[edit]

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

New template-based automated portal on a small subject area with no hand-curated content. Only 12 articles are included (one of which duplicates the introduction), some of which are not of adequate quality and others are not well related. There is a particular problem here in that the introduction is about chickenpox but much of the content is actually complications of shingles; the automated introduction system does not handle such cases. The 8 images are not attractive and some display poorly at the size. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete to narrow a topic to explore with a portal. Lack of connected articles. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with Shingles Vaccine - As with varicella, what seems to be a mild childhood infection of portals has the risk of being followed by pain much later. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:POG first sentence. The creator freely admits they were not following the guidelines so why are we having to debate these. X3. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof[edit]

Portal:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The scope of this topic is not large enough to warrant a portal. Most of the content here besides the main article is broadly related to the history of the region Cham Joof was from. The DYK section is composed of factoids selected from the main article, and as far as I can see, not of hooks featured on the main page in the DYK section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. There doesn't seem to be much content included (as far as I can see only one additional article, and two images of no obvious relevance). Much of the other suggested material is either of limited relevance, a stub or orange-tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and I put more thought into this vote than the person who created this page did making it. thought this was an automatically created portal. I oppose portals about single people or single companies or organizations as too narrow a scope. The success of Wikipedia is based on articles which already present information in a way that readers appreciate. The proof is in the readership. Almost every time you compare portal readership to article readership on a topic the contrast is huge. In this case the article is only gets 378 page views a month and for some reason the portal is ovr 200 page views. A merger to the article seems in order with a redirect. I can't understand where the portal views are coming from but we should send the readers and editors to the best option available - the main article. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic is large enough or has the potential to be large as the subject is relevant in two African nations: Senegal and The Gambia. The organisations he founded; his books; his work in politics, broadcasting, academia, trade unionism, nationalism, etc., are so broad I don't even think this portal scratched the surface. I created the Cham Joof article over 7 years ago, and although I have not worked on the portal, I think the editor who created the portal did a good job with the resources available to them. As regards to images, the editor contacted me last year asking if I have any free images to upload at Commons, as the 2 images I uploaded many years ago I licenced as non-free. I promised to upload a free image but due to life and work, I totally forgot. I also promised to translate the Traditional African religion portal to French at French Wikipedia as I promised I would do. I totally forgot about that. It is also my understanding that the editor is going through a personal bereavement as per our conversantion on their talk page. I don't think they will even see this and I think it is quite mean-spirited for someone to degrade the editor by referring to their mental state when they created this portal. Totally unacceptably!Tamsier (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tamsier: Portals are not about potential scope, they are about displaying the existing content in a different format. The best way of promoting this topic is to write and improve the content relating to the subject on the main Wikipedia, translate content from other-language Wikis and, as you mention, upload images, especially free ones. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, hand-written portal about an important African politician. Useful "Things you can do" section to encourage editing. Clearly not perfect, but a reasonable start. —Kusma (t·c) 10:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Kusma and Tamsier: So far as I can tell, we have mercifully few portals about individuals at the moment. However, if this level of inter-relatedness between portal articles was sufficient to have a portal on Wikipedia, that sets a precedent for tens of thousands of other single-individual portals. I'm not exaggerating: most figures in popular culture have more relevant material about them; but in each case, including this one, the portal is redundant to the main article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: We have at least 580 at the moment. Most of them are terrible and should be deleted, even though for many of the people, it would be possible to write a good portal. Personally, I see no value in portals aimed at readers only. However, the portal we are discussing here is going out of its way to encourage readers to become editors. We don't need to attract readers (they don't have much of a choice in encyclopaedias these days anyway), we need to attract and retain editors. Do portals help with that? In my experience, it only works with a huge amount of effort, just like keeping a Wikiproject alive is a lot of work saying thank you and suggesting interesting things to do for people. So without an editing community or at least a cheerleader, the portal probably won't work all that well. But I don't see why we should discourage people from trying, especially as the quality (by my personal standards) of this one is so much higher than that of many zero-maintenance ones. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Kusma: I respect the principle of that argument; but in this case I'm skeptical that even a well-written portal would have much value, because all the content compiled into it will be about regional history rather than the individual. Which is why I think it's misguided. It's not an unreasonable call, though, so we can agree to disagree. I've been wondering for a while whether we need a mass MfD for single-person portals, but I just don't have the patience to create it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    I was staggered to find we have 580 (!) in total, but a few of them will predate the current madness and possibly be useful. I recall Barack Obama used to be featured (the only single-person featured portal I can recall), and I am strongly arguing below that Jane Austen serves a useful purpose. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    The ones in the top level of this category [3] may be the ones that pre-date Transhumanist's work. Some of these might well be viable if restored to their original form; Shakespeare, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, that number surprised me too. I think your examples are the exceptions that prove the rule, though. How many people have material about them that is as widespread as Shakespeare? Also; the fact is that we have a very large number of navigational tools at our disposal; portals, lists, categories, navboxes, and the rather unpopular "overview" articles. I think we could comfortably afford to lose at least one of these methods altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    It would be interesting to find out which navigational tools are actually used and how much. Personally, I tend not to use portals for navigation at all, and rarely use navboxes. In mobile view, three of the methods are hidden (navboxes, categories and portal links). Instead of these well-curated navigational tools, mobile view uses some automation to suggest three "related articles" (and I have no idea how much they help readers). Anyway, if we could come to a consensus what portals are and what they should do, we could probably decide on what is or is not a good topic for a portal. Despite my keep vote above, I am also not convinced that we should have portals about individual people at all, but discouraging them and deleting someone's effort are two different things. —Kusma (t·c) 09:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, having a portal for just about any one person is ridiculous. I don't dispute his historical importance, but there simply aren't enough articles to make this valuable to the reader. ♠PMC(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not every hand-written portal is worth keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete an important figure, sure, but for a portal to be a good idea we need to have a substantial number of articles about the person, and we don't. Category:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof doesn't contain enough and many of the ones it does contain are other people associated with him. Per WP:POG portals should be about broad subject areas and should have a number of articles above start class in the topic area. Hut 8.5 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify?--Auric talk 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Auric:I don't see sense in the existence of a portal for a single person, a single singer, a single company, etc.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature[edit]

Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays, it is generally considered beneficial to avoid writing redundant essays that do not add a new point of view to the project space. Per Wikipedia:The value of essays, the objective value of an essay cannot be determined, but the volume of interaction surrounding an essay can indicate how important it is. Neither page is a policy or guideline, but I take them to represent a rough consensus around essays and their purpose.

This page has had just 76 page views between 1 July 2015 and 17 March 2019, with a majority of those page views being before July 2016. While I find the point of view presented in the essay sensible, and Floquenbeam (the primary author) is still active, the essay is orphaned and has received very few recent edits and page views. As such, I think it would be appropriate to move the essay into Floquenbeam's user space, or to add the page to Template:Wikipedia essays (which appears to be an informal and actively curated collection of essays considered important) and see what happens. Presently, there are (surprisingly) no essays concerning signatures linked from that template. Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • So which "don't send contradicting messages" essay is this one redundant with? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    @AngusWOOF: I genuinely don't know if it's actually redundant, hence my suggestion to include it in {{Wikipedia essays}} to determine roughly how significant essay readers think it is. Since the navbox forms a link farm and is transcluded on 500 pages, most essays linked from that navbox should have more page views than other essays by virtue of being included. If the essay becomes relatively more significant than other essays in the navbox (e.g. by not being the essay with the fewest page views, or by being referenced in users' comments), then that would in a way demonstrate that the essay should remain in the project namespace. Jc86035 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy - nothing wrong with the essay as far as I can tell, but lately it's come to be recognized that essays hosted in project space represent a common view of a large subset of the community, while those in userspace reflect the advice or minority opinions of a few. I agree with this essay, but I also think it's more the second thing than the first. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If the project space is getting full and it's important to make room for more popular things than my little essay, then by all means userfy. If desired, I can also rename to "Wjwefjoiwejf" just to make sure it's seen by even fewer people. Cheers! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. It obviously would be renamed to "Dmasvpoyds". Friendliest wishes, Natureium (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
Sowiejgiowejgoiwjeogjw is taken, just for the record and all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy Author is still active. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep We don't remove useful information on the basis that no one has yet put appropriate links to allow readers to find the page. The essay contains good advice which should be endorsed by the community. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Meh. If the decision is not to keep it in Wikipedia space, then userfy. I'm of the (apparently ancient) school of thought that most user essays belong in userspace until such time as other people from the community decide it belongs in Wikipedia space, and someone else moves it there; that seems to have worked out pretty well for my essays, one of which someone else moved, and the rest of which are happily ensconced in my userspace. Having said that, there are so many essays in Wikipedia space that this shouldn't even raise an eyebrow; it's better than a lot of other ones I've seen, and it does at least have a point. Risker (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nomination for deletion was a good-faith mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - useful, just not publizised well, it seems --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, can't see anything wrong with this. Having gazillions of essays in project space is one of the things that make the English Wikipedia great, and sometimes even a fun place to be. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: That an essay tells us to remove essays is not a particularly cogent argument. ——SerialNumber54129 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - This essay is useful advice for those who lack the basic social skills to know that one shouldn't serve open-face shit sandwiches at a garden party.- MrX 🖋 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Multi-authored project-related essay. Also note that the essay is "vitally important". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ironically, I found out about this essay through stalking Floquenbeam's talk page and seeing the MFD notice.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorials[edit]

Wikipedia:Editorials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays, it is generally considered beneficial to avoid writing redundant essays that do not add a new point of view to the project space. Per Wikipedia:The value of essays, the objective value of an essay cannot be determined, but the volume of interaction surrounding an essay can indicate how important it is. Neither page is a policy or guideline, but I take them to represent a rough consensus around essays and their purpose.

This essay has had just 14 page views between 1 July 2015 and 17 March 2019. It is orphaned, the talk page does not exist, and the author (Basket of Puppies) has been indefinitely blocked since 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. Furthermore, the question in the essay appears to be answered by WP:NEWSORG (editorials are considered the same as opinion pieces, opinion pieces are rarely reliable secondary sources, and notability is generally based on coverage in reliable secondary sources). I think it would be appropriate to delete the essay or move it to a subpage of the creator's user page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Useless "essay" (really just a paragraph). CoolSkittle (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. I presume to judge that User:WhatamIdoing does not consider herself an author. As a useressay, there is no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not consider myself an author. If this doesn't get moved to userspace, then it could be renamed to something like WP:Requests for comment/Notability from editorials or something like that, and treated as an RFC that never happened to get any responses. I have no objection to deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - No need to delete. No need to make a fuss about userfying. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Alexander Litvinenko[edit]

Portal:Alexander Litvinenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too limited a subject to support a portal. Default view of the portal is a typical indication of the care taken with the creation of these portals, with the "selected article" being the main article, which is already the introduction as well, and the use of the flag as image twice( because, well, the main image in the article is not free, and this is the second image in the infobox, even if it is there very small and used to indicate his first "country of allegiance" only). A useless portal. Fram (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Topic is not large enough for a portal. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Category:Alexander Litvinenko contains 8 pages, which is too narrow scope for a portal. It's had to be bulked out with content of dubious relevance, e.g. articles about Russian intelligence agencies (including KGB which ceased to exist in 1991) and the picture of the Soviet flag is rather silly. Hut 8.5 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with uranium - See Wikipedia is not a memorial. The only reason that I can see for a portal (as opposed to an article) is to publicize his murder or other crimes by Vladimir Putin. The usual reasons also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Addison, Texas[edit]

Portal:Addison, Texas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This topic (a town of 13,000 people, without exceptional other characteristics making this stand out) is too limited to support a separate portal. Averages 1 pageview per day. Fram (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Useless. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per literally everything said against this portal mess. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 22:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I am pro-portals, but this one is too small of a topic for a portal to be needed. The article sums the town up fine. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the other smaller community portals I nominated. Here is an incomplete list Wikipedia:List of city portals Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - If a portal person agrees that this is not needed, it is not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Acipenseriformes[edit]

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

If neither the portal creator nor anyone else can be bothered to do even the most basic cleanup on a portal like this, then why has it been created or should it be kept? Not only has it an issue common in many of these mindless portal creations, i.e. the "selected image" not being "selected" at all but simply the same as the one in the main article, but the "introduction" is extremely funny (if you don't take into consideration that the intention is to help readers and provide something interesting and useful). Ending a text with "Notable characteristics of Acipenseriformes include: " because, well, we always take the first two paragraphs, and there was a line break after that ":"... just shows how much the portal creator(s) care about this. If they don't care, why should we? Just get rid off this. Fram (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - Both the issues you have brought up have since been fixed. Gazamp (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete too narrow a scope, too clumsy an execution. The bird family portals are a similar problem. What the heck is the value of a FIXED page that only says "Acipenseriformes /æsɪˈpɛnsərɪˈfɔːrmiːz/ is an order of basal ray-finned fishes that includes the sturgeons and paddlefishes, as well as some extinct families". Our readers expect and deserve more! Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (with fish sauce) - The fact that two issues have been fixed doesn't address the main issue that the portal has no purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:A. H. Belo[edit]

Portal:A. H. Belo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not enough here to warrant a separate portal. Two articles, two "images" (with the result that the default view of the portal has twice the current logo, and once the similar old logo, as images), about 1 pageview a day. This is not portal material byb a wide margin. Fram (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think this might fall under the intent, if not the rubric, of the speedy criterion. The header article has an orange tag, which should disqualify it. Only one of the other articles is nonstub & non-orange-tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Espresso Addict. Textbook case of unneeded portal. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the kind of mindless mass creation that needs speedy deletion. What does this add to the article? Wikipedia has 5.7 million articles because people find them useful. If this was Portalpedia the site would have shut down years ago. I don't think any individual company os broad enough of a topic for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - With 2 articles and 2 images, maybe this gets a booby prize on the way out. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiQuizzes[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiQuizzes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but is now a decade old and has clearly not caught on—other than the two demo quizzes created in 2010, nobody has every actually used this to create a quiz. (Wikitext isn't and never well be a particularly good format for this kind of thing, and given that there are so many alternatives on the net that are easier to use and infinitely more customisable, I can't imagine this is ever actually going to catch on as a Wikipedia thing.) I suggest that this either be deleted outright, or it be marked as historical and all incoming links broken; at the moment all it's doing is wasting the time of people who see the link and think "what's this?", and potentially frustrating and upsetting good-faith new editors who stumble across the link, sign up to it and then wonder why their submissions go ignored. (If this is deleted rather than just marked as historical, its assorted subpages also need to be included.)  ‑ Iridescent 12:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep or mark historical. Do not delete. This does appear to have been quite a decent idea. I don't see why Wikipedia should not have some kind of quiz system; it seems a naturally good fit for what we do. Certainly keep this around to allow for future programmers / quiz gurus to adapt from or improve upon. Why is this even at MFD? --Doncram (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mark as historical -- WBGconverse 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is dusty, but I do not hear any sneezing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Feel free to archive, if you concern is that someone will be damaged by believing that this is active. Do not delete Wikipedia history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Achtkarspelen[edit]

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

Portal on a random smallish Frisian Dutch municipality, of limited interest (i.e. not more so than other such municipalities), with only a small number of articles. Viewed on average less than once a day. Fram (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Just as useless as the other portals on small municipalities. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete random topic with no reason for a portal Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Virginia Woolf[edit]

Portal:Virginia Woolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have a very well developed article at Virginia Woolf and this old portal that displays random photos without context or full captions, the first two paragraphs of the main article, and if you purge the page, some random page about one of the author's work. This is objectively far less useful than the Virginia Woolf page. The creator is long inactive. Portal is not supported by a wikiproject and readers don't care about it. 196 page views on the portal vs 591,976 on the head article. Why bother to link to something confising and substandard when only 0.03% of readers interested in the topic stumble into and likely click through to the article immediately anyway. If not delete, just redirect. This is not an WP:X3 creation but has been edited by the reboot team. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It has a long history that should not be deleted. Solve the problem by redirect to Virginia Woolf. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For now, Neutral because this portal precedes the spree of portal creation, and I see no specific reason why this one needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not all of the photos have captions, but most have captions. It could use some work, but that has never been a valid reason to !delete.--Auric talk 11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Years of lack of maintenance for a portal is a reason to delete. Scope problem is another. I think very few individuals need portals. We are trying to establish some baseline for inclusion criteria. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
While on one hand in general I don't want to discourage others contributing to the project in ways I don't personally value, on the other, my leaning is that portals are 13 years moribund. A few are so big that they continue on historic momentum, but the majority are moribund, and compete for attention from mainspace, negatively. The main portal, Wikipedia:Community portal, is not even in Portal space. That's my long standing position. None of it implies that deletion is the answer. Archiving is the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The proponents have made their point that single-person portals are only in order in extraordinary cases. I can't define extraordinary cases, but, like Judge Stewart, this is not one of them. Woolf was a great writer, but there are many great writers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Chrissa McFarlane[edit]

Draft:Chrissa McFarlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Chrissa McFarlane (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Plus two related pages below

The authors of both of these drafts have been blocked for covert advertising (that is, undisclosed paid editing). The first version has been declined twice at AFC. The version was draftified due to the COI and UPE. Recommend Extended-Confirmed Protection so that a neutral editor can create if they think she is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per "08:41, 16 March 2019 User:MER-C (talk | contribs) moved page Chrissa McFarlane to Draft:Chrissa McFarlane (2) without leaving a redirect (Promotional, ACPERM gaming, questionable notability, WP:GS/Crypto topic area. Likely covert advertising. Needs review at WP:AFC.). Had this been correctly just redirected when reviewed as already existing in mainspace a bot would have deleted it. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsuitable promotion. No independent sources.
Delete also:
* Draft:Patientory note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patientory
* Draft:Patientory, inc. note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patientory Inc
All CryptoSpam, crossing over into healthcare. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Concur with additions, which have now been tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt as above. The second author tried to circumvent the AFC review in ignoring the original declined draft, and pushing (2) to mainspace. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt as nonnotable spam. pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE[edit]

Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Circular-logic, childish drivel, which basically says "the article should be kept because it should be kept!!!!! Silly!!! Nuff said!!!!"

Insofar as there is any substance, it says these things are often mentioned in travel guides ... but WP:NOTTRAVEL, and travel guides have few of the qualities of WP:Reliable sources.

The essay itself quotes someone else describing it as a "a piss-pathetic essay". That is way too kind to it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep in mainspace as a multiauthored project related opinion, on the assumption that Icewhiz (talk · contribs), who added this, supports it's location in projectspace. Otherwise, userfy as a disputed single author essay.
In either case, rename to titlecase, to that it does not look like a project shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This was an essay started by Doncram and after sorting through the links the only user who has ever linked to it in a deletion discussion is Doncram. I have a big problem with this, since it's essentially a single-user personal essay being used to ignore the fact WP:NBUILD/WP:GEOFEAT is not an absolute marker of notability at AfD. Favour any result from deletion to userfyication. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously. It is an essay that is the opinion of one or more Wikipedia editors. It covers castles, museums, public attractions. It is a minimalist-style essay, pointing out succinctly that castles, museums, and other public attractions are pretty obviously wikipedia-notable, because abundant sources exist about them. It is my opinion that not much needs to be said.
The deletion nomination relates to my mention of wp:ITSAMUSEUM at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla Memorial Center, an AFD nominated by BrownHairedGirl, where I just commented that their nomination was poor in quality, because IMHO it is unlikely that they performed wp:BEFORE, and because IMHO it is pretty obvious that museums open to the public are wikipedia-notable.
I don't known if it is very relevant to this MFD, but I have personally been experiencing a number of BrownHairedGirl (BHG)'s interactions with me as amounting to wp:Bullying and Bullying. This might be the subject of a future wp:ANI or wp:arbitration. On my talk page is an comment by BHG to which i replied, to which they have not further replied. I accept however that this MFD is about the validity of the essay, whether or not BHG has been engaging in bullying. --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, I did WP:BEFORE, and as I noted in the nomination[4], (e.g. Gbooks just throws up pasing mentions). AGF please.
If you want to make a complaint about my alleged "bullying", then you know where WP:ANI is; this page is not ANI. Good luck in fabricating whatever evidence you need, because there has been no "bullying" so your only hope is fabrication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, well BHG is doing "piss-pathetic" IMHO in their ongoing AFD, having so far garnered seven "Keep" votes so far and no support so far for deletion. I actually don't mind their characterization of the essay as "the article should be kept because it should be kept!!!!! Silly!!! Nuff said!!!!". IMHO that is the appropriate quality of response to AFD nominations such as theirs. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Sorry, i was going off-topic and i didn't need to say that. --Doncram (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment — "and travel guides have few of the qualities of WP:Reliable sources." The travel guides I normally buy and read are typically published with editorial supervision. Perhaps you wish to explain what you meant by this? I may wish to view this as one more opinion desiring to push us in the direction of a news site which reflects only news sources, regardless of how low in quality those sources may be. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, imho BHG's complaint about travel guides is off-base. The article does not give telephone numbers, opening hours, etc., which is the topic of wp:NOTTRAVEL. The guideline about NOTTRAVEL is that we should not try to provide opening hours etc. Which is not at all to say that independent travel guides (which indeed might provide opening hours along with substantial info about the importance of sites) cannot be reliable sources. In fact high-quality travel guides can indeed be very reliable sources. And in general, museums like this are likely to be covered in high-quality travel guides, and are pretty obviously wikipedia-notable. --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 01:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Doncram/It's a castle and delete the WP shortcuts per SportingFlyer. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Wikipedia:Essays: Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. ... The value of an essay should be understood in context, using common sense and discretion. Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or funny.
    I see no reason to delete any essay unless it were defamatory or illogical and since this one is neither it should stay. Markvs88 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The vast majority of castles are inherently notable. This is a relevant arguement for castle AfDs which nearly always close keep (this was written after such an AfD).Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is what it is. It is also an essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the page could use some good editing but the premise is spot on. I've got guidebooks from many publishers I've field tested around the world and I consider them very reliable sources. Lonely Planet, for example, not only has a writing team and editors but solicits corrections from readers, acknowledged in the next edition. Wikipedia is not interested in the stuff that changes like opening times and prices but the history and descriptive write up on the museum or castle etc is going to be darn accurate, distilled to the most important details, especially after the guidebook has been through an update or two or ten. Recently I approved Batumi Piazza which is a tourist attraction (and totally cool - check out photos on page and linked). It's notable because website after website talks about it when discussing what to see in Batumi. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merely sums up common sense and is a reaction to ludicrous claims by deletionists, in their personal quests to delete as much of other editors' work as possible for their own arcane reasons (often, I suspect, merely because they enjoy it), that such sites are not notable. I should point out that most of them meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - In my opinion the essay is well written and useful. This essay is all common sense and is within the scope of Wikipedia:Essays. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Automated Pain Recognition[edit]

Draft:Automated Pain Recognition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CoolSkittle (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Synthesis of published material, move (transwiki import) to Wikiversity 94rain Talk 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:WPA Intelligence[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CoolSkittle (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:WPA Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Ashlee Rich Stephenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Chris Wilson (pollster) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Todd Vitale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Bryon Allen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Alex Muir (political consultant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:AnnieCR 1991/sandbox/Ashlee Rich Stephenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These drafts are the only work by User:AnnieCR 1991. The persons are all associated with WPA Intelligence. The author has declared a connection with respect to Stephenson, using a malformed box, and has not declared the connection with the other articles, so that this is mostly Undisclosed Paid Editing, that is, paid editing, mostly undisclosed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment the sourcing stinks but WPA itself could be notable. The people working for it, much less likely. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Does that mean to keep the company and delete the people? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that the company may be notable, but am arguing for deleting its draft as UPE without prejudice to re-creation by someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The COI has disclosed. Is there any reason they couldn't keep working on the draft company article to provide sourcing? valereee (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March 17, 2019[edit]


Bottom Importance Portals[edit]

Withdrawn by Nom It has become clear that the WikiProject Portals assessment system is very inconsistent and therefore a poor way to group nominations. I'd prefer to leave this open for the rest of the seven days for additional comments though.

Portal:Bacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:24 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:A Nightmare on Elm Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:A. R. Rahman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Abu Dhabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:AC DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Academy Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Portal:Anime and manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal:Battleships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:College basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Jane Austen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Narnia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Sacramento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Saint Petersburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This portals were assessed by WikiProject Portals as "Bottom" importance (below Top, High, Medium and Low). Bottom Portals are "Portals on niche topics; typically individual (or small groupings of) people, places, and things – including film, television, and book series" which means they conflict with the portal guidelines which specify portals that will attract readers and editors. These portals are found in Category:Bottom-importance Portal pages and were generally assessed by the main proponents of portals

The portal creators are a little behind on assessing importance because Category:Unknown-importance_Portal_pages has 4,699 unassesed, but we need to start somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Is User:Legacypac saying that the portal people are saying that these portals are useless? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion of Portal:Anime and manga That is not a niche topic nor individual by any means with over 14,000 articles to its name (and constantly growing).-- 21:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion of Portal:Anime and manga This is an actively used portal here with thousands of assessed articles, please strike it from the MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've striken Portal:Anime and manga as it appears to be improperly assessed. I'll raise the importance class on it and unmark it for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jane Austen, a portal based on a level 3 vital article that dates to 2012 with 11 FAs/FLs/GAs and many more high-quality articles as well as considerable reader interest. If this has been assessed as low then I think the portal assessment needs refining/ditching. As a side issue the portal lacks a deletion notice. Some of the other lit ones appear viable too, Harry Potter for example, which dates from 2006 pends off a level 4 vital article and has plenty of available content including 30 FAs/FLs/GA. Possibly Narnia too. In fact I'm tempted to say the whole list is poorly chosen as several others look very plausible: Battleships has an immense list of high-quality content, and plenty of people seem interested in that area, Saint Petersburg looks well developed, and Abu Dhabi might have been ok before it was broken. I have not got time to review them all. I also think bundling such a diverse group under the header Bacon is not reasonable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Bacon is just the first one so it created the page name. The heading is clear but I'm not looking to cause any confusion so I'll move the whole page. If the assessment system is broken that is an issue that brings into question the portals assessed at higher levels of importance. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I think these should be bundled separately by topic. Unlike your other nominations there's no consistency of topic and a broad range of importance. The initial inclusion of Anime & Manga suggests that the assessment is simply random. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I bundled this small batch because they were all assessed the same. If they should be assessed the same Bottom level is why I bundled them. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
We both agree that the judgement of the portal project is not to be relied upon. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose deletion of Jane Austen portal, because Jane Austen stands alone as an author. As to Harry Potter, Narnia, is there a fantasy portal for them? Merge three authors into a Fantasy portal. Those two and J R R Tolkien were made into movies in the 21st century, a common experience of a generation. Why not tie them together, as they are tied together by the timing of the movies, though not the novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a LOT of specific food portals but only Bacon is assessed as Bottom importance. It's weird frankly. Also lots of bands but only AC DC is assessed this low. Generally I believe the author's or band's page does a much better job then any portal. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
On authors, I don't necessarily agree. The article on Jane Austen, whilst a GA that appears to adequately cover her life, is not a good introduction to her works, their subject, style, innovations & place compared with contemporary writing, their long, complex critical history, the plethora of adaptations, nor the cult of Jane Austen. It is a huge topic, on which thousands of books have been written. Moreover, if one is interested in Austen at the "whoah, Colin Firth is hot!" level (and many are), a long detailed prose article with little on the modern adaptations is not at all what you are looking for. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Struggling to understand why this collection of pages was nominated. We have Category:Bottom-importance Comics articles which has over 2000 entries but AFAIK they haven't been declared useless. Remember that Deletion is not cleanup. The better thing to do would be to reassess the pages.--Auric talk 11:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - I wonder if, as the nominator has pointed out, the "Bottom" importance assessment has been applied in an irrational way (i.e., that Bacon is tagged as Bottom, but all other specific food portals are tagged higher), it might not be the criteria we ought to be using to determine whether a portal should be deleted or not. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment First off, for clarity, I created :Portal:The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I followed what I believed were correct Portal processes for creating this portal and then updated the Talk page to 'Bottom'. It seems that through my own endeavours to categorise as such this portal gets roped into being nominated for deletion. Had I decided to instead list as 'Low-importance' it would have been omitted (for now at least). So, have a look at the Low-importance portals list and witness a large number that have less content than The Prisoner one (e.g. :Portal:Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), :Portal:Air Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and the classic :Portal:Bedding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and there's plenty plenty more). I just think there needs to be a far better way of assessment here. Also, there clearly needs to be more information on the Portal creation page as following the "How to make a good portal" means a lot of potential creators may well think their portal (though niche) has value and follows rules and is worth inclusion. As for understanding WP:MEATBOT etc they not great examples of plain English TBH. Portals obviously need better assessment and clearer instructions. Should :Portal:The Prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) get deleted then so be it but I do wish that better portal instructions had been in place before I wasted several hours on the 'Did You Knows'... Londonclanger (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking through these examples, it suggests the problem is with the evaluation system. Qwirkle (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Jane Austin, Harry Potter, Academy Awards (+redirect), College basketball, Sacramento, Saint Petersberg, Abu Dhabi. If we're going to have Portals these all have significant enough content to populate such a space. No opinion on the rest simply because I haven't looked at them but would guess they would likely be delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose all as a class, these are very disparate portals that have been incorrectly bundled. Keep Jane Austin, Harry Potter, Abu Dhabi, College basketball and Academy Awards specifically as these are very significant topics about which there is ample scope for a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a grab bag that includes some hugely popular topics that have remained so for decades (Bacon, Harry Potter, Narnia, College basketball, most of the rest). Improvement, not deletion, is the best course of action for these. RobDuch (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep A. R. Rahman. This person is popular in India and portal has enough significant content as well as topics. Mr. Smart LION 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16, 2019[edit]

Indonesian Provinces and Russian Federal Subjects[edit]

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

Jambi is a province of Indonesia, with a population of 3 million. However, as with many other non-English-speaking areas, en.wp's coverage is thin: the entire tree of Category:Jambi+subcats contains only 18 non-stub, non-biographical articles, so it does not even meet the risibly low bare minimum of 20 set by the fans of mass-created auto-portals at WP:WPPORT.
Hopefully some day en.wp's coverage of this region will expand, but as of now there simply aren't enough articles to justify a portal.
This portal is yet another auto-generated drive-by creation of portal-spammer @The Transhumanist, and it is so badly configured that its selected article list contains only a single page. That could theoretically be fixed, but since there are not enough articles anyway, there is no reason to keep this page in the hope that in far-off some day there may be more articles and the portal may actually be curated. Better to just WP:TNT it; there is nothing here worth preserving, and this portal-to-one-page is simply a waste of readers' time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended list of bundled pages

The list of portals has a bunch more. There are 34 in total Provinces of Indonesia: Portal:AcehPortal:BaliPortal:Bangka * Portal:Belitung IslandsPortal:BantenPortal:BengkuluPortal:Central JavaPortal:Central KalimantanPortal:Central SulawesiPortal:East JavaPortal:East KalimantanPortal:East Nusa TenggaraPortal:Gorontalo (province)Portal:JakartaPortal:JambiPortal:LampungPortal:Maluku (province)Portal:North KalimantanPortal:North MalukuPortal:North SulawesiPortal:North SumatraPortal:Papua (province)Portal:RiauPortal:Riau IslandsPortal:South KalimantanPortal:South SulawesiPortal:South SumatraPortal:Southeast SulawesiPortal:West JavaPortal:West KalimantanPortal:West Nusa TenggaraPortal:West Papua (province)Portal:West SulawesiPortal:West SumatraPortal:Yogyakarta. (Found this one at Portal:Special Region of Yogyakarta

Redlinked ones are planned and copied from the list. While they are first order subdivisions of the country, Indonesia is not a federation and the provinces are created for administrative convenience, not because of any historical reasons (compare to countries like Canada, USA, Germany, and Switzerland where most first level subdivisions have a historical identity and significant self governing powers). Many of these provinces have been formed in the last 20 years out of other provinces. Indonesia is better broken into 7 geographic regions which are each somewhat culturally distinct from each other. I've been to some of them and can say travelers will not generally notice they are in this or that province within Kalimantan or Java but that there are cultural differences between those regions, and especially the region of Western New Guinea.

These portals are so useless at least some don't even have a map. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

All the ones that say "current rollback vandalism" are pages that have never been touched since creation. Given the rate of creation, were these pages even looked at when created?

  1. 13:42, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,961‎ N Portal:Special Region of Yogyakarta ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  2. 13:42, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,737‎ N Portal:West Sumatra ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  3. 13:38, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,934‎ N Portal:West Sulawesi ‎ start portal
  4. 13:36, 13 February 2019 diff hist +3,054‎ N Portal:West Papua (province) ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  5. 13:35, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,821‎ N Portal:West Nusa Tenggara ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  6. 13:35, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,779‎ N Portal:West Kalimantan ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  7. 13:35, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,695‎ N Portal:West Java ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  8. 13:35, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,751‎ N Portal:South Sumatra ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  9. 13:34, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,765‎ N Portal:South Sulawesi ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  10. 13:34, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,793‎ N Portal:South Kalimantan ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  11. 13:34, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,821‎ N Portal:Southeast Sulawesi ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  12. 13:33, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,737‎ N Portal:Riau Islands ‎ RiauIslandsProvince
  13. 13:32, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,625‎ N Portal:Riau ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  14. 13:31, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,793‎ N Portal:Papua (province) ‎ start portal
  15. 13:30, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,751‎ N Portal:North Sumatra ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  16. 13:30, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,765‎ N Portal:North Sulawesi ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  17. 13:30, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,737‎ N Portal:North Maluku ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  18. 13:29, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,793‎ N Portal:North Kalimantan ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  19. 13:28, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,807‎ N Portal:Maluku (province) ‎ start portal
  20. 13:24, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,667‎ N Portal:Lampung ‎ start portal current [rollback] [vandalism]
  21. 13:24, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,639‎ N Portal:Jambi ‎ start portal
  22. 13:24, 13 February 2019 diff hist +2,821‎ N Portal:East Nusa

Russian federal subjects

Portal:Kuril Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) only part of a federal subject
Portal:Bashkortostan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Tatarstan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Kaliningrad Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Krasnoyarsk Krai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Chelyabinsk Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion[edit]
  • Delete all I've added evidence that these were mass created in contravention of WP:MEATBOT. Assessing these junky portals is taking more time then went into creating them all. Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Pointless time sink. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all. - More evidence that we need a speedy deletion criterion. Are these second-level administrative subdivisions? We have already had India and the United States. Will China or Brazil be next? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - No. These are first-level subdivisions. Will Russian oblasts be next? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes User:Robert McClenon. We don't need portals for the 85 federal subjects of Russia either. Bundling the ones I could find. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Country level portals should be enough.--Auric talk 11:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to broader topics. It's likely that in future we will have enough content for useful portals about at least some of these, and given that portals about major first level subdivisions exist in other parts of the world (e.g. Portal:Ohio, Portal:Manitoba, Portal:South Australia, Portal:Wales, etc) it's quite likely that readers will look for portals on equivalent subdivisions in other parts of the world. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:La Verne, California[edit]

Portal:La Verne, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Too small a topic for a portal. Category:La Verne, California contains only 13 articles, of which three are electoral districts of which La Verne contributes <10% of the population, so La Verne is arguably not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those topics.
Even with those pages included, the total is way below even the absurdly low minimum of 20 articles set by the fans of mass-portal-creation at WP:WPPORT.
The navbox at Template:La Verne, California does a better job at helping navigation, because a) it is displayed on the articles themselves whereas the portal requires navigation to a separate page, and b) the portal displays only one page at a time, whereas the navbox displays them all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Like the other small cities. Can these be bundled? Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
discussion on individual nominations vs group nominations
  • @Legacypac: So long as we are doing individual assessments at MFD, rather than applying a speedy criterion, I think it's usually better to do them individually. That allows a clearer focus on the issues in each case, in case anyone queries of opposes the assessment I (or any other nominator) make.
Of course, there may be some sets which merit a group nomination, such as the sets of University-of-FooState-at-location portals which you helpfully bundled yesterday ... but I think cities are a more varied set which deserves closer scrutiny.
I think that if we do enough in this way and wait for outcomes, then it may be possible to identify patterns of where consensus lies, and then start to group fuzzier sets with more confidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you are wrong there User:BrownHairedGirl. It’s about notification of stakeholders, not satisfaction of a tagging rule. Make a list. Notify all of the author. That’s enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC). I assume it is easy enough to list these Portals by creation month, and to quickly sort the single author Portals to list first? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry @SmokeyJoe, but I dunno what you are on about. Face-smile.svg
@Legacypac and I were discussing the best way to organise such discussions to facilitate consensus formation, balancing the burden on multiple discussions versus the extra scrutiny of individual nomination.
I didn't mention tagging ('cos it's a trivial AWB job), and author notification is an issue however it's done (tho possibly irrelevant in practice in most portal MFDs, 'cos the creator is nearly always the serial portal-spammer @The Transhumanist=, who so far as I can detrmine has engaged with almost none of the dozens of recent MFDs of their portal creations). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
BHG, I thought you were concerned about the need to mfd-tag every page. That is not necessary when one person is the sole author of every page in the list. I don’t think individual Portal nominations are the way to go. Instead, list all that are basically the same, recently made by TTH, not other non-minor authors, narrow scope. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, @SmokeyJoe. Point taken on group noms. The how-to-tackle this stuff is being discussed by me and @Legacypac at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Bots_and_AWB: would you be kind enough to join us there, rather using this page for a process meta-discusison? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to clean up. BLOCK anyone who does mass creations without an approved Bot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fram (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Kerem Albayrak[edit]

Draft:Kerem Albayrak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Way too much AfC effort wasted on this. Now this is being brought up at the AfC helpdesk. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete The multiple accounts and IPs behind this aren't learning. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete A news story about single event. jni(talk)(delete) 07:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Have the multiple accounts been reported for suckpoppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:ResetEra[edit]

Draft:ResetEra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted in Jan at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResetEra the proponent refuses to accept this, posting at the AfC help desk after the page was rejected. Delete by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per AfD discussion. Bonus deletion points for the "Wikipedia Bias" section not satisfying WP:SUBJECT. jni(talk)(delete) 08:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is an absolute mess, and there's a good argument for WP:G4. I do believe that an article could probably be written on ResetEra, considering it does have a decent amount of notability in the industry as the major successor to NeoGAF, but it needs to be done by someone unbiased and starting from scratch. I've gone ahead and redirected ResetEra to NeoGAF#History until such an article can be written. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As noted by User:jni, the trouble-stirring of the Wikipedia Bias section is an add-on that strongly suggests that the author is not here to contribute constructively but is trying to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Are GamerGate sanctions available? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Greatest Depression[edit]

Draft:The Greatest Depression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Total NOR violation, to say nothing of being unsourced and using a crystal ball not available to the rest of us. Utterly unsalvageable. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Culture of Belize[edit]

Portal:Culture of Belize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another pointless portal, with only 3 pages in its selection list, and uncurated apart from a few minor tweaks by its creator. In theory, a portal like this could be developed based on Category:Belizean culture, but that's only in theory: in practice, as with many hundreds of similar automated portals, nobody wants the job. It's almost unused by readers: only 30 pageviews in the whole of January 2019. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The goal seems to be a portal on every country's culture and more as Portal:Culture of Bengal (compare to Portal:Culture of Bangladesh) shows. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Deleteas fails existing WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect & threaten BLOCK. These nominations are all the same (making many same parallel nominations is itself disruptive). The issues are always the same. TTH is the sole author. MfD them all in a group nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Fram (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Portal:Belize until such time as there is sufficient curatorial interest. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:La Puente, California[edit]

Portal:La Puente, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another undersized portal. Category:La Puente, California contains only 17 articles, two of which are state legislature districts where La Puente accounts for less than 10% of the population, so they are marginal inclusions.
Even the create-as-many-portals -as-we can WP:WPPORT sets a minimum of 20 articles, which portal this doesn't meet, and it also fails the WP:PORTG guidance that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.
The eponymous Category:La Puente, California does a much better job of providing navigation between articles, as would Template:La Puente, California if it was expanded. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:History of computing[edit]

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

Pointless. The only actual navigational aid is a category tree of Category:History of computing, and that is handled better by simply going directly to Category:History of computing.
There might in theory be scope for a genuinely useful portal on this topic, with a properly-curated set of articles ... but this page is not it, and there is nothing worth keeping. So WP:TNT it; anyone building a genuine portal at a later date will do better to start from scratch rather than try to build on @The Transhumanist's drive-by-creation . BrownHairedGirl