- 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) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:The WB
New portal created with the same automated tools as the others after the community instituted a freeze on mass portal creation. The topic is a single company (a defunct TV network) and the material it shows is either in The WB article (the nav box, the one featured logo image, the lede) or a click away (the lede from the TV shows on the nav box). This adds nothing to the topic not in the article already. Legacypac ( talk) 15:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Given that several editors are suggesting individual television shows be upmerged into the relevant network, suggesting deleting a major (if defunct) network might be counterproductive. I don't know much about US television but I do know that multiple WB shows -- including Buffy, Smallville & Supernatural among many others -- had huge fannish followings and are therefore likely to have plentiful & high-quality Wikipedia coverage. The top-level article is C-class with no apparent tags and there is a well-populated category (with subcats). The potential problem with the logos appears ok in this instance, as they are claimed to be insufficiently original to be protected. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does fair use rational apply to this page independant of the main page? I see the lack of images as a reason the portal is not useful. It adds nothing not available on the article page. I would also emphasize that this portal was created on March 27 with the mass creation script by someone who has created many portals. This is at least against the spirit of the Portals creation pause RFC if not the letter.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Images for all portals, including the main page, must be free, not fair use. One can use free pictures of actors or locations in television/film-related portals. On the other point, I'm not sure MfD is meant to deal with conduct issues? But in any case creating 6 or 7 portals in a month is hardly mass creation.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Willful creation of a bunch of portals during a community voted freeze seems like a very good reason to delete a portal regardless of it's subject matter. Legacypac ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Images for all portals, including the main page, must be free, not fair use. One can use free pictures of actors or locations in television/film-related portals. On the other point, I'm not sure MfD is meant to deal with conduct issues? But in any case creating 6 or 7 portals in a month is hardly mass creation.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does fair use rational apply to this page independant of the main page? I see the lack of images as a reason the portal is not useful. It adds nothing not available on the article page. I would also emphasize that this portal was created on March 27 with the mass creation script by someone who has created many portals. This is at least against the spirit of the Portals creation pause RFC if not the letter.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time, having not researched this topic in sufficient detail. I am not aware of a pause on the creation of new portals, and I was the Original Poster of the AN thread about hundreds of portals. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support While I confess to not being fully versed on portals, the page adds nothing to Wikipedia. Esuka ( talk) 00:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support deletion. This portal has nothing that can't be accessed from The WB page. Box99Tube ( talk) 20:03, 6 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) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:The WB
New portal created with the same automated tools as the others after the community instituted a freeze on mass portal creation. The topic is a single company (a defunct TV network) and the material it shows is either in The WB article (the nav box, the one featured logo image, the lede) or a click away (the lede from the TV shows on the nav box). This adds nothing to the topic not in the article already. Legacypac ( talk) 15:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Given that several editors are suggesting individual television shows be upmerged into the relevant network, suggesting deleting a major (if defunct) network might be counterproductive. I don't know much about US television but I do know that multiple WB shows -- including Buffy, Smallville & Supernatural among many others -- had huge fannish followings and are therefore likely to have plentiful & high-quality Wikipedia coverage. The top-level article is C-class with no apparent tags and there is a well-populated category (with subcats). The potential problem with the logos appears ok in this instance, as they are claimed to be insufficiently original to be protected. Espresso Addict ( talk) 01:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does fair use rational apply to this page independant of the main page? I see the lack of images as a reason the portal is not useful. It adds nothing not available on the article page. I would also emphasize that this portal was created on March 27 with the mass creation script by someone who has created many portals. This is at least against the spirit of the Portals creation pause RFC if not the letter.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Images for all portals, including the main page, must be free, not fair use. One can use free pictures of actors or locations in television/film-related portals. On the other point, I'm not sure MfD is meant to deal with conduct issues? But in any case creating 6 or 7 portals in a month is hardly mass creation.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Willful creation of a bunch of portals during a community voted freeze seems like a very good reason to delete a portal regardless of it's subject matter. Legacypac ( talk) 18:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Images for all portals, including the main page, must be free, not fair use. One can use free pictures of actors or locations in television/film-related portals. On the other point, I'm not sure MfD is meant to deal with conduct issues? But in any case creating 6 or 7 portals in a month is hardly mass creation.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does fair use rational apply to this page independant of the main page? I see the lack of images as a reason the portal is not useful. It adds nothing not available on the article page. I would also emphasize that this portal was created on March 27 with the mass creation script by someone who has created many portals. This is at least against the spirit of the Portals creation pause RFC if not the letter.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time, having not researched this topic in sufficient detail. I am not aware of a pause on the creation of new portals, and I was the Original Poster of the AN thread about hundreds of portals. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support While I confess to not being fully versed on portals, the page adds nothing to Wikipedia. Esuka ( talk) 00:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support deletion. This portal has nothing that can't be accessed from The WB page. Box99Tube ( talk) 20:03, 6 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.