Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bill Bryson
- 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) 22:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Portal:Bill Bryson[edit]
Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal. Its contents appear to consist only of a list of 21 of Bryson's books. A narrow and finite set such as this is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bill Bryson and Template:Bill Bryson. Portals shoud be used for broader fields with a much larger article set, such as literary movemnets or genres ... but indivudual authors need portals only in the most eminent cases, where there their work has enduring literary significance which has led to articles on individiual charcaters, derivative works, criticism and commentary. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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 (TALKCONT) 21:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a new portal based mainly or entirely on links from the corresponding navbox, but there are further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal (such as places, people or events related to the subject); besides which, the current number of selected articles is still a decent basis on which to build a portal. As has been discussed at length elsewhere (a discussion that would be pointless to repeat here), a portal is more than a summary of the core subject and a collection of related links; "a head article and a navbox" do not serve the same purpose or provide the same user experience as a portal. WaggersTALK 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
*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. –Davey2010Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – Comes across as a useful navigational aid for those interested in the subject. North America1000 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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 19:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows). — The Transhumanist 03:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion on portal creation criteria[edit]
- 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.