Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:George Orwell

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: Renominate individually Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:George Orwell

Three of the very last single person portals not deleted or under MFD and headed for deletion. These author's articles are a much better way to explore their life and works. Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As the nomination is worded, it's unclear how these portals may or may not conform with Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. It would be helpful to have an actual policy-based rationale for the proposed deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NA1000 you have participated in many similar discussions about individuals. We have found repeatedly that individual authors, artists, politicians, etc all are too narrow a subject to meet the required scope of WP:POG. It is stretching AGF to believe you are unaware of the the discussions you participated in and that you need a whole long explanation again. Legacypac (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep H. P. Lovecraft portal I have put a good deal of time and effort in maintaining and keeping my portal for Lovecraft up to date. I disagree that his article is a better way to explore his life and works. There are, for example, no galleries of art related to his work. There is an ocean of text and very little art. There are a good many free images on Commons related to him and his works. This portal is a good bridge between the two. --Auric talk 14:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3. Here is your guideline-based rationale, which all 3 fail (guidelines are the basis for the deletion of content from WP all the time): from WP:POG: "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. . . . the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content." UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovecraft portal, as I see it, fulfills those guidelines.--Auric talk 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? 6 pageviews a day? If that's a large number of readers, what is a small number of readers? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says "likely to". There is nothing about "required minimum pageviews". I built an attractive portal, but there is no way to drive traffic there, except with outgoing links.--Auric talk 11:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 - too narrow topic. Moreover, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality. E.g. George Orwell bibliography.

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-28 21:10:07 by User:Weegaweek : Portal:George Orwell.

- Maintained, 51 subpages, created 2018-05-06 13:56:50 by User:Auric, maintained by User:Auric : Portal:H. P. Lovecraft

- Old portal, 61 subpages, created 2008-01-15 20:13:33 by User:RedCoat10. Portal:Oscar Wilde

Pldx1 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lump the Lovecraft portal in with the Orwell portal.--Auric talk 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment precedent at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/February 2019, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/March 2019 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/April 2019 supports that portals about people fail our relevant inclusion criteria as too narrow a scope. These are important authors but are they more important then every other author/artist/politician/world leader/scientist/singer etc we have found to fail WP:POG? Legacypac (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/February 2019 provides no supposed precedent regarding biographical portals whatsoever. Only seven portals are archived there, and none of them are biographical. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well glad you looked. Did you count how many single bio portals we have deleted in the last three calendar months? Must be hundreds. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal Lovecraft, weak keep Portal Oscar Wilde. This is another very dubious example of bundling, where the most deletable item comes first, and the others are slipped in under its cover. As I have said on numerous occasions I see no reason to delete all single-person portals. They are three very different writers, apart from having the advantage from our perspective of being long dead, and all three seem like potentially broad enough topic areas. Portal:Lovecraft is maintained, looks attractive and has 10 selected articles (though personally I wouldn't have included non-Euclidean geometry), 6 bios & 15 images, a little on the slight side but could probably be developed further. I love the "Invoke the Eternal Chaos" re-randomise link, which suggests the portal creator cares about the topic. Portal:Oscar Wilde looks attractive and has 8 selected articles, 8 images & 31 quotations – which I usually don't count, but here he's known for them. Hard to judge the content in detail as it lacks subpage summaries and my wrists don't cope with clicking refresh repeatedly. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no nefarious plan to the construction of the bundle. I worked from A-Z gathering bios that turned out to fall into two areas - writers and performers. I grouped what I found into two nominations based on obvious commonalities. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alphabetisation by first name; I see. I think of them by surname. I don't think bundling of automated and non-automated is ever a good idea, and you fail to mention this distinction in your original deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – The nomination lacks a valid qualification for deletion. There is no dictum against biographical portals at Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, nor should there be. Topic qualification should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, rather than per blanket subjective assertions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close without prejudice. The histories are too mixed to assess them as one group, as commented by User:Espresso Addict. User:Legacypac - Wake up and smell the coffee. Stop submitting these bundles of new and old portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Legacypac - Stop redirecting MFD pages. It screws things up. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 25 April 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.