- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Benny Goodman
Single person portal. No Category section. No photos not found on the article page. This is just a stripped down version of the article with less info, the same nav box of his works, and a random snippet for one of the album or song articles already linked from the main article. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Benny_Goodman was kept pleading they would update the portal guidelines and that the page would be expanded - neither of which has happened - while thousands of similar micro portals have been mass created at the rate of one per 12 seconds. I put more time and thought into this nomination than the originator put into the page. Legacypac ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. No opinion on single-person portals in general (and more keen on them when the subject has a lasting & international reputation, as here) but the main article in this case has an orange-level tag and there is no category. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Does not meet WP:POG. For example, there are not enough available articles to draw from to meet WP:POG guidelines. North America 1000 11:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Yet another narrow-focus portal created recently when creating portals has been fun and too easy. No reason to think that this one is needed. As Espresso Addict points out, there is a maintenance tag on the main article (which proves lack of quality control in general). Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for now – When we decided to keep this portal six months ago, I !voted to hold on until we have consensus on portal guidelines. Little has changed. The portal in its current form is narrow, but (as
Waggers pointed out last time) other content could be added. Yes, someone should have contacted
WikiProject Jazz by now, but "it's only a stub" isn't a deletion rationale, and nor is
Single person
, and nor isthousands of similar micro portals have been mass created
. I don't see an argument strong enough to overturn a recent Keep consensus. Certes ( talk) 15:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- last time you voted "Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)" Plenty of time has passed for that. Various Portal proponants have dismissed the guidelines as something they don't need to follow, and created thousands of new non-guideline compliant pages. This failed the guidelines in September and still fails the guidelines today. User:BrownHairedGirl's nomination was very correct and now the time to delay deletion for guideline revisions is passed. There is no way the guideline will be revised to be more permissive than it is now to include even narrower scope pages like this. Legacypac ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Thanks for the notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. I don't see that this portal provides any greater information and navigation usability than the Benny Goodman article and associated Template:Benny Goodman. The Associated Wikimedia box provides a time-wasting experience, misleading in its promise that "The following Wikimedia Foundation sister projects provide more on this subject", e.g. "Did you mean belly good as", "Did you mean: being gottman", etc. I am seeing no user-facing benefit from this portal. AllyD ( talk) 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, for exactly the same reasons as I
nominated it in September 2018: it is
yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 16 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Benny Goodman and Template:Benny Goodman
.
- It is disappointing to see @ Certes coming along to wikilawyer a case against deletion. No amount of fettling of the portal will alter the very simple basic flaw that the topic is too narrow. Add marginally-relevant topics to bloat the numbers, as @ Waggers suggested last time, will not rsove the problem; it will just dilute the utility of the portal.
- Many hundreds of these narrow-scope drive-by-portals were created in a semi-automated process by the now topic-banned editor @ The Transhumanist, in a process which by TTH's own statement allowed only one two minutes per portal (TTH: ( Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes))
- It is highly disruptive to repeatedly waste the community's resources by demanding that massive amounts of time be put into scrutinising each individual product of this WP:MEATBOT portalspam. I find it hard to sustain an assumption that this is done in good faith, esp when a previous MfD was not followed through with any effort of resolve the issues, and when even the portal fans themselves were proposing a minimum size threshold which would have excluded this portal. I cannot mindread Certes's intent ... but I do note that if someone who did intend to design a process of filibustering and obfuscation was devising tactics, then they would do well to include procedural obfuscation such as Certes's deflection from the fundamental flaw into a nother call for yet more time to be put into this 60-second creation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Benny Goodman
Single person portal. No Category section. No photos not found on the article page. This is just a stripped down version of the article with less info, the same nav box of his works, and a random snippet for one of the album or song articles already linked from the main article. Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Benny_Goodman was kept pleading they would update the portal guidelines and that the page would be expanded - neither of which has happened - while thousands of similar micro portals have been mass created at the rate of one per 12 seconds. I put more time and thought into this nomination than the originator put into the page. Legacypac ( talk) 16:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. No opinion on single-person portals in general (and more keen on them when the subject has a lasting & international reputation, as here) but the main article in this case has an orange-level tag and there is no category. Espresso Addict ( talk) 00:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Does not meet WP:POG. For example, there are not enough available articles to draw from to meet WP:POG guidelines. North America 1000 11:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Yet another narrow-focus portal created recently when creating portals has been fun and too easy. No reason to think that this one is needed. As Espresso Addict points out, there is a maintenance tag on the main article (which proves lack of quality control in general). Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for now – When we decided to keep this portal six months ago, I !voted to hold on until we have consensus on portal guidelines. Little has changed. The portal in its current form is narrow, but (as
Waggers pointed out last time) other content could be added. Yes, someone should have contacted
WikiProject Jazz by now, but "it's only a stub" isn't a deletion rationale, and nor is
Single person
, and nor isthousands of similar micro portals have been mass created
. I don't see an argument strong enough to overturn a recent Keep consensus. Certes ( talk) 15:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- last time you voted "Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)" Plenty of time has passed for that. Various Portal proponants have dismissed the guidelines as something they don't need to follow, and created thousands of new non-guideline compliant pages. This failed the guidelines in September and still fails the guidelines today. User:BrownHairedGirl's nomination was very correct and now the time to delay deletion for guideline revisions is passed. There is no way the guideline will be revised to be more permissive than it is now to include even narrower scope pages like this. Legacypac ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Thanks for the notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. I don't see that this portal provides any greater information and navigation usability than the Benny Goodman article and associated Template:Benny Goodman. The Associated Wikimedia box provides a time-wasting experience, misleading in its promise that "The following Wikimedia Foundation sister projects provide more on this subject", e.g. "Did you mean belly good as", "Did you mean: being gottman", etc. I am seeing no user-facing benefit from this portal. AllyD ( talk) 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, for exactly the same reasons as I
nominated it in September 2018: it is
yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 16 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Benny Goodman and Template:Benny Goodman
.
- It is disappointing to see @ Certes coming along to wikilawyer a case against deletion. No amount of fettling of the portal will alter the very simple basic flaw that the topic is too narrow. Add marginally-relevant topics to bloat the numbers, as @ Waggers suggested last time, will not rsove the problem; it will just dilute the utility of the portal.
- Many hundreds of these narrow-scope drive-by-portals were created in a semi-automated process by the now topic-banned editor @ The Transhumanist, in a process which by TTH's own statement allowed only one two minutes per portal (TTH: ( Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes))
- It is highly disruptive to repeatedly waste the community's resources by demanding that massive amounts of time be put into scrutinising each individual product of this WP:MEATBOT portalspam. I find it hard to sustain an assumption that this is done in good faith, esp when a previous MfD was not followed through with any effort of resolve the issues, and when even the portal fans themselves were proposing a minimum size threshold which would have excluded this portal. I cannot mindread Certes's intent ... but I do note that if someone who did intend to design a process of filibustering and obfuscation was devising tactics, then they would do well to include procedural obfuscation such as Certes's deflection from the fundamental flaw into a nother call for yet more time to be put into this 60-second creation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.