Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamophobia

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A controversial topic ill suited to a portal which has no references and only shows parts of articles. This has no editorial control, no one watching it, and the short excerpts can easily lack the balance achieved in the full articles by including work by many editors. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Controversial topics should not have portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with the nominator that this is a very ill-chosen portal topic. Some of the linked material presents BLP concerns when shorn of its referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contentious/controversial topics are poor choices for portals because they lack references and because automated portals like this are not being monitored or maintained by humans. Hut 8.5 10:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated by nominator and Espresso Addict and Hut 8.5, a topic that must be dealt with carefully, and this was not. I need a canned statement for that purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – In the 2014 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 7 § References in portals, users were against references being existent in portals. As such, a lack of sources in this present portal does not qualify deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I debunked your copy pasted comment elsewhere as something a small group of portal people decidedwas a good fast fix to clean up ugly errors refs were causing. They did not really discuss WP:V and no mention of BLPs was made. Your copy pasted comment does not address the issues raised here. Legacypac (talk) 09:14, 4 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.