Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Average White Band

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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Average White Band[edit]

Far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 36 articles, of which 12 are redlinks. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox; we already have both. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in WP:Portal guidelines#Purposes_of_portals to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this portal was started just about 3 weeks ago, perhaps the creator The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) can chime in with what plans are intended for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a new portal, it should be given time to develop. 36 articles is sufficient to merit having a portal, and as the redlinked articles are created the portal will become more useful. Worth remembering that a portal is much more than an article and a navbox; articles, templates and portals serve different purposes. WaggersTALK 12:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Waggers: time will not resolve the core problems that this narrow scope means there are only enough articles to populate a modest navbox. Even if all the redlinks in the navbox become artices, that woulkd add only 11 more pages.

The rapid-fire navbox creation by the portal's originator gives no indication that there is any intention to spend time developing the portal, or that there has been any research into a wider scope. Nor do you given any indication of having researched such scope.

Where is the consensus that portals should be created as standalone navboxes? Or the evidence that readers use such narrow-scope portals? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is primarily based on the premise that the number of selected articles is too low, and that indicates too narrow a scope. As I've said above, I don't think the number of selected articles is too low, and even if it were, that's not the only measure of the scope of a portal. There is no policy or guideline that sets out a minimum number of selected articles required for a portal to exist, nor any other definition of the minimum scope required for a portal to exist. These manifold MfD nominations are based on your personal opinion, not on any guideline or policy. As User:Godsy says, let's get an agreed guideline in place and then we can determine which portals meet it or fail to.Waggers TALK 12:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Godsy and Waggers: Just keep in mind that such a discussion, that is about deleting existing portals via creation criteria, is itself a deletion discussion. A notice is required to be posted upon each page subject to a deletion discussion, to give the people who work on it or use it an opportunity to participate in the discussion of the fate of the page. ;) — The Transhumanist 10:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy et el. –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A functional navigational aid for those interested in the group. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Wikipedia:Portal guidelines#Article selection. — The Transhumanist 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows). — The Transhumanist 04:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on portal creation criteria[edit]

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 16:47, 26 September 2018 (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.