- 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Portal:Finger Lakes
Does not meet notability guidelines for Portals -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 06:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: There's a notability guideline for portals? I've neither seen nor heard of one before now. I can't find any mention of it on
WP:PORTAL or
WP:N. Please provide links to this elusive guideline. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. It makes sense to have portals on notable subjects only. Also, they need maintenance and if there are insufficient editors to maintain them they fall by the wayside. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as this portal topic is plenty broad, and the content is maintained and automatically updates the page on each load. Also, there is no "notability guideline" at that link. All that is there is a comment that "the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". This portal clearly meets that. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not an abandoned Portal, and notability seems not to be a relevant grounds for deletion. Collect ( talk) 10:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - If its not notable, then tell me how come it wasn't MfDd back when I started it in June 2008. I think its a waste to nominate what's already been featured, and there has been changes since then, but the main portal hasn't been edited, the subpages have since promotion.Mitch32( Growing up with Wikipedia 1 edit at a time.) 11:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Mitch and Nihonjoe; there simply is NO mention of "notability" in any guideline or policy in regards to portals. This is unfortunately my fault for mentioning in the MfD on the NY Capital District MfD that the Finger Lakes, NYC, and Hudson Valley areas of NY also have portals; this same editor who nominated the FL region had nominated the NYCD portal. Hopefully he/she did not also nominate the Hudson Valley region. Should this editor continue to go around MfDing any portal on a geographical region for no reason other than its a geographical region (masquerading their reason as being for "notability") there may have to be consequences. Camelbinky ( talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- This portal is maintained by active Wikipedians. It is also setup in such a fashion that maintenance takes very little effort. It has been through multiple stages of review, and it is currently a
Featured Portal. I am curious why the nominator did not even attempt to discuss this, prior to this action. --
Cirt (
talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not discuss it since to me it seemed clear that it was not a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers" as stipulated in
Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. I am actually surprised at the current level of response to this MfD. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are surprised that the largest wine producing region in the US is notable? Also please remember this is in NY, the third largest state in the US, with the largest city in the US, while this isnt a vote, you ARE bringing up "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers"... yea we go those. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that portals are not required to be notable in and of themselves. Rather, they exist to bring attention to (or highlight) high quality content on Wikipedia within a specified topic range. Yes, portals shouldn't be too narrowly defined, but the portals you've nominated for deletion are not even close to being too narrowly defined. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- To say "narrowly defined" is subjective in the absence of what is meant by "narrow". Looking at it from another angle,
Portal:Contents/Portals#Geography_and_places shows that the two portals I put up for deletion are somewhat out of place. They are the only two that are not a country or large city. So should we have a portal for every city? Including, say
Nelson, New Zealand? There needs to be a line drawn across all topics and all of those that are notable can be created as a portals otherwise they should not exist. At present, due to lack of explicit guidelines and the organic, random nature of page creation, we get the situation of random portals being created.
Systemic bias does not help either and it is this bias that is why we have these two portals. The discussion goes way beyond this MfD. We need a clearly defined guideline for including portal. I feel that the inclusion guidelines should be more restrictive so that only the most notable topics are included. This will act as a means to reign in the creation of portals that are not really needed (or wanted??) on WP. Portals should be a much smaller subset of all the topics on WP.--
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we're using 2010 standards to complain about a portal started in 2008 and FP'd in 2009, something's wrong. Of the portals you nominated for MFD, in which I think you made the wrong decision, you not cared to mention that this one is featured. The Finger Lakes is a pretty wide and famous. If we made a portal on the Great Lakes, would you MFD it.Mitch32(
Growing up with Wikipedia
1 edit at a time.) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Alan, you state you put up two, it was actually three portals you put up for deletion. All three currently look like they are being saved. The NYCD one came closest, however I believe a well-respected admin is preparing to update and begin making it as good as the HV and FL portals. Which its ironic that one came closest to deleting and yet is the most historic and most populous.
Camelbinky (
talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes - I stand corrected. It was three. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Alan, you state you put up two, it was actually three portals you put up for deletion. All three currently look like they are being saved. The NYCD one came closest, however I believe a well-respected admin is preparing to update and begin making it as good as the HV and FL portals. Which its ironic that one came closest to deleting and yet is the most historic and most populous.
Camelbinky (
talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we're using 2010 standards to complain about a portal started in 2008 and FP'd in 2009, something's wrong. Of the portals you nominated for MFD, in which I think you made the wrong decision, you not cared to mention that this one is featured. The Finger Lakes is a pretty wide and famous. If we made a portal on the Great Lakes, would you MFD it.Mitch32(
Growing up with Wikipedia
1 edit at a time.) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- To say "narrowly defined" is subjective in the absence of what is meant by "narrow". Looking at it from another angle,
Portal:Contents/Portals#Geography_and_places shows that the two portals I put up for deletion are somewhat out of place. They are the only two that are not a country or large city. So should we have a portal for every city? Including, say
Nelson, New Zealand? There needs to be a line drawn across all topics and all of those that are notable can be created as a portals otherwise they should not exist. At present, due to lack of explicit guidelines and the organic, random nature of page creation, we get the situation of random portals being created.
Systemic bias does not help either and it is this bias that is why we have these two portals. The discussion goes way beyond this MfD. We need a clearly defined guideline for including portal. I feel that the inclusion guidelines should be more restrictive so that only the most notable topics are included. This will act as a means to reign in the creation of portals that are not really needed (or wanted??) on WP. Portals should be a much smaller subset of all the topics on WP.--
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not discuss it since to me it seemed clear that it was not a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers" as stipulated in
Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. I am actually surprised at the current level of response to this MfD. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep upstate NYer 02:32, 16 April 2010 (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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Portal:Finger Lakes
Does not meet notability guidelines for Portals -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 06:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: There's a notability guideline for portals? I've neither seen nor heard of one before now. I can't find any mention of it on
WP:PORTAL or
WP:N. Please provide links to this elusive guideline. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. It makes sense to have portals on notable subjects only. Also, they need maintenance and if there are insufficient editors to maintain them they fall by the wayside. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 07:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep as this portal topic is plenty broad, and the content is maintained and automatically updates the page on each load. Also, there is no "notability guideline" at that link. All that is there is a comment that "the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". This portal clearly meets that. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not an abandoned Portal, and notability seems not to be a relevant grounds for deletion. Collect ( talk) 10:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - If its not notable, then tell me how come it wasn't MfDd back when I started it in June 2008. I think its a waste to nominate what's already been featured, and there has been changes since then, but the main portal hasn't been edited, the subpages have since promotion.Mitch32( Growing up with Wikipedia 1 edit at a time.) 11:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Mitch and Nihonjoe; there simply is NO mention of "notability" in any guideline or policy in regards to portals. This is unfortunately my fault for mentioning in the MfD on the NY Capital District MfD that the Finger Lakes, NYC, and Hudson Valley areas of NY also have portals; this same editor who nominated the FL region had nominated the NYCD portal. Hopefully he/she did not also nominate the Hudson Valley region. Should this editor continue to go around MfDing any portal on a geographical region for no reason other than its a geographical region (masquerading their reason as being for "notability") there may have to be consequences. Camelbinky ( talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- This portal is maintained by active Wikipedians. It is also setup in such a fashion that maintenance takes very little effort. It has been through multiple stages of review, and it is currently a
Featured Portal. I am curious why the nominator did not even attempt to discuss this, prior to this action. --
Cirt (
talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not discuss it since to me it seemed clear that it was not a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers" as stipulated in
Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. I am actually surprised at the current level of response to this MfD. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are surprised that the largest wine producing region in the US is notable? Also please remember this is in NY, the third largest state in the US, with the largest city in the US, while this isnt a vote, you ARE bringing up "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers"... yea we go those. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that portals are not required to be notable in and of themselves. Rather, they exist to bring attention to (or highlight) high quality content on Wikipedia within a specified topic range. Yes, portals shouldn't be too narrowly defined, but the portals you've nominated for deletion are not even close to being too narrowly defined. ···
日本穣
? ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe 22:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- To say "narrowly defined" is subjective in the absence of what is meant by "narrow". Looking at it from another angle,
Portal:Contents/Portals#Geography_and_places shows that the two portals I put up for deletion are somewhat out of place. They are the only two that are not a country or large city. So should we have a portal for every city? Including, say
Nelson, New Zealand? There needs to be a line drawn across all topics and all of those that are notable can be created as a portals otherwise they should not exist. At present, due to lack of explicit guidelines and the organic, random nature of page creation, we get the situation of random portals being created.
Systemic bias does not help either and it is this bias that is why we have these two portals. The discussion goes way beyond this MfD. We need a clearly defined guideline for including portal. I feel that the inclusion guidelines should be more restrictive so that only the most notable topics are included. This will act as a means to reign in the creation of portals that are not really needed (or wanted??) on WP. Portals should be a much smaller subset of all the topics on WP.--
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we're using 2010 standards to complain about a portal started in 2008 and FP'd in 2009, something's wrong. Of the portals you nominated for MFD, in which I think you made the wrong decision, you not cared to mention that this one is featured. The Finger Lakes is a pretty wide and famous. If we made a portal on the Great Lakes, would you MFD it.Mitch32(
Growing up with Wikipedia
1 edit at a time.) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Alan, you state you put up two, it was actually three portals you put up for deletion. All three currently look like they are being saved. The NYCD one came closest, however I believe a well-respected admin is preparing to update and begin making it as good as the HV and FL portals. Which its ironic that one came closest to deleting and yet is the most historic and most populous.
Camelbinky (
talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yes - I stand corrected. It was three. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Alan, you state you put up two, it was actually three portals you put up for deletion. All three currently look like they are being saved. The NYCD one came closest, however I believe a well-respected admin is preparing to update and begin making it as good as the HV and FL portals. Which its ironic that one came closest to deleting and yet is the most historic and most populous.
Camelbinky (
talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- If we're using 2010 standards to complain about a portal started in 2008 and FP'd in 2009, something's wrong. Of the portals you nominated for MFD, in which I think you made the wrong decision, you not cared to mention that this one is featured. The Finger Lakes is a pretty wide and famous. If we made a portal on the Great Lakes, would you MFD it.Mitch32(
Growing up with Wikipedia
1 edit at a time.) 23:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- To say "narrowly defined" is subjective in the absence of what is meant by "narrow". Looking at it from another angle,
Portal:Contents/Portals#Geography_and_places shows that the two portals I put up for deletion are somewhat out of place. They are the only two that are not a country or large city. So should we have a portal for every city? Including, say
Nelson, New Zealand? There needs to be a line drawn across all topics and all of those that are notable can be created as a portals otherwise they should not exist. At present, due to lack of explicit guidelines and the organic, random nature of page creation, we get the situation of random portals being created.
Systemic bias does not help either and it is this bias that is why we have these two portals. The discussion goes way beyond this MfD. We need a clearly defined guideline for including portal. I feel that the inclusion guidelines should be more restrictive so that only the most notable topics are included. This will act as a means to reign in the creation of portals that are not really needed (or wanted??) on WP. Portals should be a much smaller subset of all the topics on WP.--
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not discuss it since to me it seemed clear that it was not a "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers" as stipulated in
Wikipedia:Portal guidelines. I am actually surprised at the current level of response to this MfD. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 22:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep upstate NYer 02:32, 16 April 2010 (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.