The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal. Its contents appear to consist only of a list of 21 of Bryson's books. A narrow and finite set such as this is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bill Bryson and Template:Bill Bryson. Portals shoud be used for broader fields with a much larger article set, such as literary movemnets or genres ... but indivudual authors need portals only in the most eminent cases, where there their work has enduring literary significance which has led to articles on individiual charcaters, derivative works, criticism and commentary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –
Davey2010
Talk
01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: keep . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal. Its contents appear to consist only of a list of 21 of Bryson's books. A narrow and finite set such as this is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bill Bryson and Template:Bill Bryson. Portals shoud be used for broader fields with a much larger article set, such as literary movemnets or genres ... but indivudual authors need portals only in the most eminent cases, where there their work has enduring literary significance which has led to articles on individiual charcaters, derivative works, criticism and commentary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –
Davey2010
Talk
01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)