Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bob Hope

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) 22:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Bob Hope[edit]

Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 17 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Bob Hope and Template:Bob Hope. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 25 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) 13:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Hope. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect is not warranted. The portal can be easily orphaned and it's not a likely search term. Although not a categorically forbidden cross-namespace redirect, it's highly confusing. When people click on a portal link they expect to find a portal, not an article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your definition of "warranted"? Redirects are cheap and easy, is there something wrong with redirecting? Can you explain an example of someone being confused? Is the automatic "(Redirected from ..." hatnote note big enough? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong 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. Could likely be expanded. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new portal which currently only utilises the 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. Waggers TALK 11:46, 26 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 01:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A useful and informative navigational aid that provides a unique overview of the subject all in one place. If readers don't want to utilize it, they don't have to. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:41, 28 September 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 03:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This portal is not ready for the encyclopedia with its main category empty. Its main category will not be ready with only 17 articles (and guidelines say 20 as a minimum) anyway. We obviously have a few portal-inclusionists. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 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 19:43, 5 October 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)} 16:48, 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.