Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy

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. This has been up for more than 2 months now. I see no consensus for a merge with Portal:Military of Australia due to its rename. The two now have slightly different scopes. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Royal Australian Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A country portal is enough to contemplate all the subtopics that may exist regarding it. I think sub portals about countries (Portal:cuisine of "country" , military of "country", economy of "country") are unnecessary and does not meet WP:POG Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the premise of this nom. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. No opinion on this portal in particular, but I disagree strongly with the premise. Does anyone seriously think, say, Portal:United States should cover all U.S. topics? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Espresso Addict:, just like the article United States cover all U.S. topics.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you advocate deleting all articles in mainspace on U.S. topics? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict:, I advocate, for example, that Wikipedia: WikiProject Military history, rather than maintaining and creating a "military of" portal for each country, maintain and create a "military of" section in each country portal, centralizing edits and watchers with others wikiprojects.Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals should only be split into smaller portals when they get too big, just like articles should only be split up when they get too big. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Old portal, 58 subpages, created 2008-07-27 09:16:19 by User:Hossen27. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Royal Australian Navy. Pldx1 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Well within the scope of Military of Australia and segregating this branch out is not necessary. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pending clarification. Reading the nomination and the nominator’s further writing suggests that this should be redirected into another portal, or merged with another portal, rather than simply nuked. Qwirkle (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, this is one of the more informative portals. Would not oppose a merge with Portal:Military of Australia. RobDuch (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RobDuch:, is an interesting idea, but how do you suggest this merge? I imagine something like keeping the subpages of the original portal.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about how portals are structured. Keeping some subpages sounds good. RobDuch (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with the following comments:
  • • We definitely don't need this portal and Military of Australia.
    • Another heritage portal by an inactive creator.
    • Portals are not articles and do not need to be split because they get too large, although their coverage can be too small or too narrow.
    • No comment on specific deletion proposals for anything not at MFD, but many more are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, I agree with RobDuch. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge, I agree with RobDuch. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this cadaver and Stop Joking. Indeed, this is not a portal but the remains of a cadaver. Let us analyze seriously the elements of this pseudo-portal, as described by its main page. We have:

Thus, ABSOLUTELY ANY TEXT in these snippets is exactly unchanged from 2008. There are some picture replacements by the usual bots, not by a human user. Oh, yes, there is ONE biography snippet that dates from 2012 (so recent)... but this one is excluded by the max=3 parameter (too recent, may be). Moreover, each of these outdated snippets could be re-extracted at will, in an automated manner, from the corresponding article, as a starting point for any maintainer who would appear... if anyone had any real interest with a portal about this topic... and if this topic was recognized a sufficiently broad one.

This cadaver was galvanized by TTH in 2018. As a result, we have a marvelous line {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} that mainly says: this portal is not maintained, while any subpage can be deleted at will. What is to be merged ?

You can merge the empty set to anything you want, this would only change nothing. Pldx1 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one was missing: Did You Know that all the anniversaries of the Australian Navy occurred during July and August ? Pldx1 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a terrible rationale for deletion; it’s based on input rather than output. Dump something simply because no one has had to fix it lately? That could be because it didn’t need fixing. Something that acts as a way of seeing across interrelated topics need not change in the same way that those topic articles themselves may. Qwirkle (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no one has had to fix it. What a great joke ! Nothing has ever occurred to the Australian Navy since 2008! What have they done with the taxpayers' money during all these 11 years ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from (mis)use of ephemeral terms like “latest” and “recent”, why should the majority of information here change rapidly? This is gathering together broad topics whose interrelationships could easily remain stable for decades. I suspect this is true of a good many other portals; thats a poor reason to delete. Qwirkle (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all that turned wrong, everything went right. Sure. This is the way all Navies are acknowledging their losses. Have you found an 'explanation' to this strange behavior of the Australian Navy's anniversaries: they only are occurring during July and August. I for sure have such an explanation: nobody cares about this portal, because nobody thinks this portal could ever become a useful navigation tool. But you seems to disagree. Pldx1 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, pending a wider consensus on which topics should have portals.

This portal is not actually broken. Despite its limited scope, the lack of actual brokenness puts it way ahead of most old-style portals. And the limited pageviews are a problem common to nearly all portals.

The last month of cleanup MFDs has been an important process of getting rid of the recent influx of junk, and some old perma-broken portals. But with that process nearing completion, some editors are appears to be moving onto MFDing much older, non-broken portals which really fall into the scope of issues which should be decided at RFC.

For the record, I personally think that this portal is way too narrow. However, it's also not trivia, which is how I would describe the slew of single-person portals discussed at MFD. The question of precisely what we draw the line on narrow topics needs to be decided as a matter of principle at an RFC, rather than making ad hoc decisions on individual cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see a reason to delete. Vermont (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This violates the WP:POG guideline's prohibition against portals that are redundant to another portal; this one is completely covered by Portal:Military of Australia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the nomination is a pure case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'm afraid, and doesn't give any policy based reason for deleting. The scope is plenty broad enough for a portal to exist. WaggersTALK 14:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This portal has 6 daily average pageviews, as opposed to 745 for the article. We have very seldom kept portals with fewer than 10 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 11 June 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.