Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tintin

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tintin[edit]

I view this as not meeting WP:POG, as the topic's overall scope is not broad enough. This is an automated portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Automated portal which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Tintin, of which is therefore a redundant fork. This is exactly the same issues which led to the deletion of the similar portals created by @The Transhumanist. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

The topic is also too narrow, failing the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Good catch, @Northamerica1000.

Just delete it, and don't allow re-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree that it may not be broad enough, your suggestion of WP:SALTing the portal is rather hurtful. I did put some work into this portal, including manually curating the images.--Auric talk 12:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually mean WP:SALT. I meant that this is not one of the many portal discussions where I have proposed something along the lines of "delete without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time". I doubt that WP:SALTing will be needed.

But anyway, do see WP:PLEASEDONT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to beg, I was wondering if my work meant that a curated recreation wasn't on the table.--Auric talk 15:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thank User:Northamerica1000, who is normally a portal advocate, for taking an initiative to clean up some of the more obviously unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see arguments that the breadth of subject might be wide enough, given our coverage per Category:Tintin, the assessment of the head article as level 4 vital, and the statement from the FA The Adventures of Tintin: "The series was one of the most popular European comics of the 20th century." However, there's a clear consensus for deleting portals created in this fashion. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the portal scope is broad enough. Category:Tintin does have a lot of pages in it but lots of them don't have much relevance to Tintin (e.g. Loch Lomond distillery is included because a Tintin character drinks it). Furthermore WP:POG requires the portal articles to be "diverse", and an awful lot of the articles in scope are about Tintin characters or stories, which I don't think makes for much diversity. Hut 8.5 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created 2018-11-23 11:49:56, no subpages, maintained by User:Auric. Not a sufficiently large topic, nothing more than a lower quality duplicate of the corresponding template: Portal:Tintin. Pldx1 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 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.