- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Aaron Sorkin
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)
- 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)
- Keep, pending establishment of criteria. We need to decide categorically whether we can have portals on single individuals (or singular-entity but multi-individual performers, such as jazz and rock bands), and treat them consistently. If we can't have a portal on Aaron Sorkin, Al Jolson, or Men at Work, then we likely shouldn't have one on U2 or Monty Python or Mozart. If we can have portals on all those things, then by what criteria? Can we also have a portal on Snooki or Tommy Tutone or Kim Wilde or Ron Jeremy or Paul Winfield? The current deletion-spree behavior is not constructive, since it's randomly resulting in deletes and keeps without a consistent rationale in either direction. In this case there are a bare minimum of 17 pertinent articles, and this is probably a low estimate since many of these portals have not been updated. If we take 20 as a hard limit, and 17 is accurate in this case, it just means that this portal would be recreated shortly, unless Sorkin stops working or gets hit by a bus or something. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think those are fair comparisons and it isn't reasonable to lump all portals of people in the same bucket. Aaron Sorkin hasn't had nearly as much influence as, say, Mozart. There are also far more articles about works by Mozart, aspects of Mozart's life and other topics which would be within scope for a Mozart portal. Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has 562 entries. I'm not saying we should have an portal on Mozart but there is a much stronger case for the existence of a Mozart portal than there is for this one and we don't need a new guideline to conclude that. The 20 article idea was an informal suggestion by Wikiproject Portals, and even they didn't think it was a hard rule. Even if Sorkin does write some more TV series that wouldn't change the fact that this portal is really just a more verbose version of Template:Aaron Sorkin. Hut 8.5 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Portals are navigation aides. It's better to direct readers wanting this and related topics to the main article, where all the relevant topics will be linked. DrKay ( talk) 17:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Aaron Sorkin
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)
- 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)
- Keep, pending establishment of criteria. We need to decide categorically whether we can have portals on single individuals (or singular-entity but multi-individual performers, such as jazz and rock bands), and treat them consistently. If we can't have a portal on Aaron Sorkin, Al Jolson, or Men at Work, then we likely shouldn't have one on U2 or Monty Python or Mozart. If we can have portals on all those things, then by what criteria? Can we also have a portal on Snooki or Tommy Tutone or Kim Wilde or Ron Jeremy or Paul Winfield? The current deletion-spree behavior is not constructive, since it's randomly resulting in deletes and keeps without a consistent rationale in either direction. In this case there are a bare minimum of 17 pertinent articles, and this is probably a low estimate since many of these portals have not been updated. If we take 20 as a hard limit, and 17 is accurate in this case, it just means that this portal would be recreated shortly, unless Sorkin stops working or gets hit by a bus or something. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think those are fair comparisons and it isn't reasonable to lump all portals of people in the same bucket. Aaron Sorkin hasn't had nearly as much influence as, say, Mozart. There are also far more articles about works by Mozart, aspects of Mozart's life and other topics which would be within scope for a Mozart portal. Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has 562 entries. I'm not saying we should have an portal on Mozart but there is a much stronger case for the existence of a Mozart portal than there is for this one and we don't need a new guideline to conclude that. The 20 article idea was an informal suggestion by Wikiproject Portals, and even they didn't think it was a hard rule. Even if Sorkin does write some more TV series that wouldn't change the fact that this portal is really just a more verbose version of Template:Aaron Sorkin. Hut 8.5 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Portals are navigation aides. It's better to direct readers wanting this and related topics to the main article, where all the relevant topics will be linked. DrKay ( talk) 17:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.