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.
Plenty or scope but this portal covers a controversial topic best handled in articles with references. A very recent automatic creation.
Legacypac (
talk)
06:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
We put refs on the page that needs them - the reader should not need to go hunting for them. This format can not provide the balance needed. Balance is found in a proper article not some snippets. This is similar to the some other controversial portal topics we deleted already.
Legacypac (
talk)
08:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
A local discussion that violates sitewide policy, arrived at to solve a display problem. Oh refs are giving us problems, let's toss all the refs. Not binding on the site.
Legacypac (
talk)
19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I've checked the creator's contribution log and this portal was not created in bulk. I would imagine most portals start out with the basic portal start page template.
SportingFlyerT·C15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, which is precisely the problem: with this template, there is no intelligent curation, leading to all the issues that we see in a majority of portals.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
If the basic structure of the Article Creation Wizard produced numerous errors and lead to an RFC that resulted in a pause in it's use while the issue was sorted out, absolutely.
Legacypac (
talk)
17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Plenty of content available to qualify this portal. See the category tree below:
A disruptive comment that does not address the reason for the nomination. I specified there was lots of content in the scope, the issue is the controversial nature of the topic and lacknof references in the portal format.
Legacypac (
talk)
23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Portals are best used to handle non-controversial topics. Apparently the portal advocates simply think that the higher the profile of the article, the greater the need for a portal. I disagree.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
Plenty or scope but this portal covers a controversial topic best handled in articles with references. A very recent automatic creation.
Legacypac (
talk)
06:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
We put refs on the page that needs them - the reader should not need to go hunting for them. This format can not provide the balance needed. Balance is found in a proper article not some snippets. This is similar to the some other controversial portal topics we deleted already.
Legacypac (
talk)
08:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
A local discussion that violates sitewide policy, arrived at to solve a display problem. Oh refs are giving us problems, let's toss all the refs. Not binding on the site.
Legacypac (
talk)
19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I've checked the creator's contribution log and this portal was not created in bulk. I would imagine most portals start out with the basic portal start page template.
SportingFlyerT·C15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, which is precisely the problem: with this template, there is no intelligent curation, leading to all the issues that we see in a majority of portals.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
If the basic structure of the Article Creation Wizard produced numerous errors and lead to an RFC that resulted in a pause in it's use while the issue was sorted out, absolutely.
Legacypac (
talk)
17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment – Plenty of content available to qualify this portal. See the category tree below:
A disruptive comment that does not address the reason for the nomination. I specified there was lots of content in the scope, the issue is the controversial nature of the topic and lacknof references in the portal format.
Legacypac (
talk)
23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Portals are best used to handle non-controversial topics. Apparently the portal advocates simply think that the higher the profile of the article, the greater the need for a portal. I disagree.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)reply
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.