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) 20:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Overly narrow scope for a portal per
WP:POG, by definition there are seven articles in scope, and anyone who wants to read about them can just as easily read
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Hut 8.5 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete the editor that spent seconds creating this dismisses portal guidelines as not applicable. A dumb portal idea.
Legacypac (
talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The scope is not sufficiently broad; the content is better presented as a list or table. While there appear to be a number of other Seven
Wonders of the World lists, there seems no agreement on what to include, so I don't think broadening the scope to include any entity on any of these lists is going to result in a coherent topic.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 19:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - It is incorrect that there are seven articles in scope. There are eight articles in scope, because the list is also significant. So what? If there had been other lists of seven, it would be a longer list. It warrants a navbox.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:20, 31 March 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 20:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Overly narrow scope for a portal per
WP:POG, by definition there are seven articles in scope, and anyone who wants to read about them can just as easily read
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Hut 8.5 16:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete the editor that spent seconds creating this dismisses portal guidelines as not applicable. A dumb portal idea.
Legacypac (
talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The scope is not sufficiently broad; the content is better presented as a list or table. While there appear to be a number of other Seven
Wonders of the World lists, there seems no agreement on what to include, so I don't think broadening the scope to include any entity on any of these lists is going to result in a coherent topic.
Espresso Addict (
talk) 19:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - It is incorrect that there are seven articles in scope. There are eight articles in scope, because the list is also significant. So what? If there had been other lists of seven, it would be a longer list. It warrants a navbox.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 18:20, 31 March 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.