- 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) 11:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Starbucks
-
Portal:Starbucks (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Newer portal built from the basic portal start page by another editor, so not subject to X3 as currently proposed. Should be deleted like the others as a derivative work of the ill conceived mass creation effort. Same kind of reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Legacypac ( talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As Legacypac says, created by a different author, but touched by the original author, who apparently has a reverse Midas touch. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – there are quite a few articles on or related to Starbucks, and this portal is a convenient navigation tool for surveying them. You can click through their leads until you come to one that you want to read in more depth – exactly what the slideshows were designed for: a browsing aid. Notability pertains to subjects, not to pages about them, and Starbucks is notable. Legacypac is confusing notability with scope, and scope is covered in the Portals guideline. This portal's subject far exceeds the scope required for a portal. Note that Legacypac is using this page as a venue to object to portals in general, which is not the purpose of MfD, and violates WP:FORUMSHOP. He's already stated his case against portals in the thread link he provide above. He hasn't provided any valid reasons for deletion, as the portal does not violate any Wikipedia rule, and follows all portal guidelines.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 11:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not confusing anything. This violates the existing guidelines and most likely will violate any new guideline that make it through a RFC based on the comments made in various venues. Starbucks is a notable topic, but an automated portal does a poor job of presenting any topic. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of numerous editors at Village Pump, AN and many MfDs of Portals that are still on this page and recently closed. Created with the same template/tools as the portals for which X3 applies - that is a darn good reason to consider deletion. The only difference here is the editor who hit save to create the page. Legacypac ( talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Not seeing a valid rationale for deletion in the nomination, which consists entirely of an I don't like it rationale, and contains no analysis of the portal's actual content. North America 1000 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The portal functions as a useful navigational aid for those who choose to use portals. North America 1000 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals.
Legacypac (
talk)
23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I have created some portals, but I did not create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Also, I have added some info. to my !vote above.
North America
1000
18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I 'don't like' that users get the idea that this is "contributing to areas of wikipedia". I've just viewed four talk pages of users steered toward portals and automatic contributions, all with comments from others urging everyone to do the same. Now filled with notices of deleted pages. Your defence of these pages indicates that you have assumed they fall within regular contributions. You are wasting your time, throwing good money after bad, whatever I can say to convince you to stop wasting the community's time: Ask yourself this, why were they not created before if they are so obviously useful? The prime movers in this knew there would mass MfDs and grumpy users who are wondering why their page is up for deletion, and did nothing to avoid this inevitability. At least one of those prime movers, the longtime champion of portals, then outlines, then portals …, is all but silent, the most generous thing I can think is they are conducting a social experiment. cygnis insignis 16:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I have created some portals, but I did not create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Also, I have added some info. to my !vote above.
North America
1000
18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals.
Legacypac (
talk)
23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, far too small a topic area to be of any use to readers. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POG portals should be about broad topic areas and should have enough articles above start class to populate the featured content section. Starbucks is not a broad topic area and the featured content section is mostly populated with start- and stub-class articles, although it also has the main Starbucks article featured and a GA bio which barely even mentions Starbucks. Hut 8.5 08:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. The nomination seems to be principally a series of ad hominems and I don't like portals that I don't like. This is at the narrow end of broad enough to sustain a portal, so a merge to a portal about coffee shop chains or coffee shop culture might be better but it is good enough on its own. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can't merge to a nonexistant target like
Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that
WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute?
Legacypac (
talk)
20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Saying "broaden" rather than "merge" may have been clearer, but merging several pages with a narrow scope into a new, broader one at a different title is a perfectly normal thing to do. As for X3, if you cared to actually read my arguments against it you will see they are perfectly consistent with my MfD recommendations (which are all left in good faith) - some of the created portals should be deleted, some should be merged and/or redirected and others should be kept. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can't merge to a nonexistant target like
Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that
WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute?
Legacypac (
talk)
20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep –Meets WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- How? When various experienced editors have explained why it fails the POG a vote that asserts we are all wrong without a reason is not instructive. Legacypac ( talk) 04:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is also a duplicate !vote, so I've struck it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:POG. Starbucks is not a broad topic, as that guideline requires. The company is well outside the group of the world largest, or longest lasting, or greatest globally culturally impacting companies. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:43, 29 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) 11:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Starbucks
-
Portal:Starbucks (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Newer portal built from the basic portal start page by another editor, so not subject to X3 as currently proposed. Should be deleted like the others as a derivative work of the ill conceived mass creation effort. Same kind of reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Legacypac ( talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As Legacypac says, created by a different author, but touched by the original author, who apparently has a reverse Midas touch. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – there are quite a few articles on or related to Starbucks, and this portal is a convenient navigation tool for surveying them. You can click through their leads until you come to one that you want to read in more depth – exactly what the slideshows were designed for: a browsing aid. Notability pertains to subjects, not to pages about them, and Starbucks is notable. Legacypac is confusing notability with scope, and scope is covered in the Portals guideline. This portal's subject far exceeds the scope required for a portal. Note that Legacypac is using this page as a venue to object to portals in general, which is not the purpose of MfD, and violates WP:FORUMSHOP. He's already stated his case against portals in the thread link he provide above. He hasn't provided any valid reasons for deletion, as the portal does not violate any Wikipedia rule, and follows all portal guidelines.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 11:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not confusing anything. This violates the existing guidelines and most likely will violate any new guideline that make it through a RFC based on the comments made in various venues. Starbucks is a notable topic, but an automated portal does a poor job of presenting any topic. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of numerous editors at Village Pump, AN and many MfDs of Portals that are still on this page and recently closed. Created with the same template/tools as the portals for which X3 applies - that is a darn good reason to consider deletion. The only difference here is the editor who hit save to create the page. Legacypac ( talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Not seeing a valid rationale for deletion in the nomination, which consists entirely of an I don't like it rationale, and contains no analysis of the portal's actual content. North America 1000 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The portal functions as a useful navigational aid for those who choose to use portals. North America 1000 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals.
Legacypac (
talk)
23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I have created some portals, but I did not create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Also, I have added some info. to my !vote above.
North America
1000
18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I 'don't like' that users get the idea that this is "contributing to areas of wikipedia". I've just viewed four talk pages of users steered toward portals and automatic contributions, all with comments from others urging everyone to do the same. Now filled with notices of deleted pages. Your defence of these pages indicates that you have assumed they fall within regular contributions. You are wasting your time, throwing good money after bad, whatever I can say to convince you to stop wasting the community's time: Ask yourself this, why were they not created before if they are so obviously useful? The prime movers in this knew there would mass MfDs and grumpy users who are wondering why their page is up for deletion, and did nothing to avoid this inevitability. At least one of those prime movers, the longtime champion of portals, then outlines, then portals …, is all but silent, the most generous thing I can think is they are conducting a social experiment. cygnis insignis 16:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I have created some portals, but I did not create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Also, I have added some info. to my !vote above.
North America
1000
18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals.
Legacypac (
talk)
23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, far too small a topic area to be of any use to readers. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POG portals should be about broad topic areas and should have enough articles above start class to populate the featured content section. Starbucks is not a broad topic area and the featured content section is mostly populated with start- and stub-class articles, although it also has the main Starbucks article featured and a GA bio which barely even mentions Starbucks. Hut 8.5 08:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. The nomination seems to be principally a series of ad hominems and I don't like portals that I don't like. This is at the narrow end of broad enough to sustain a portal, so a merge to a portal about coffee shop chains or coffee shop culture might be better but it is good enough on its own. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can't merge to a nonexistant target like
Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that
WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute?
Legacypac (
talk)
20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Saying "broaden" rather than "merge" may have been clearer, but merging several pages with a narrow scope into a new, broader one at a different title is a perfectly normal thing to do. As for X3, if you cared to actually read my arguments against it you will see they are perfectly consistent with my MfD recommendations (which are all left in good faith) - some of the created portals should be deleted, some should be merged and/or redirected and others should be kept. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can't merge to a nonexistant target like
Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that
WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute?
Legacypac (
talk)
20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep –Meets WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- How? When various experienced editors have explained why it fails the POG a vote that asserts we are all wrong without a reason is not instructive. Legacypac ( talk) 04:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is also a duplicate !vote, so I've struck it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 23:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:POG. Starbucks is not a broad topic, as that guideline requires. The company is well outside the group of the world largest, or longest lasting, or greatest globally culturally impacting companies. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 04:43, 29 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.