Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:August Derleth

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:August Derleth

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: August Derleth and Template:August Derleth. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 24 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) 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fancier navigation page for sure, with new innovations that are highly useful, but it's not a navbox (which is a footer box of links). The main features of this portal are slideshows, of both images, and content. Content? Yeah. Slideshows of encyclopedic content that you can read. Though I think my favorite feature of portals is the image slideshow, which let you survey the subject visually, without having to scroll up and down an article to see the pictures. — The Transhumanist 05:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are far more than 17 articles within the scope of this portal, as evidenced by the number of links in Template:August Derleth, but bear in mind that there are further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal (such as places, people or events related to the subject). 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waggers (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Waggers: your rationale basically amounts to "fancier navbox on standalone page, whose tiny scope is padded out with tangential topics". Please can you point me towards any consensus that this is an approporiate use of portal space? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. The "fancy navbox on standalone page" argument is your and yours alone. I've made clear in several of these MfDs what makes a portal different to a navbox, as have several other editors. Did you not hear?
  - This nomination is primarily based on the premise that the number of selected articles is too low, and that indicates too narrow a scope. As I've said above, I don't think the number of selected articles is too low, and even if it were, that's not the only measure of the scope of a portal. There is no policy or guideline that sets out a minimum number of selected articles required for a portal to exist, nor any other definition of the minimum scope required for a portal to exist. These manifold MfD nominations are based on your personal opinion, not on any guideline or policy. As User:Godsy says, let's get an agreed guideline in place and then we can determine which portals meet it or fail to.Waggers TALK 12:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:29, 25 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 01:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A useful navigational aid for those interested in the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:44, 28 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 19:49, 5 October 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 04:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on portal creation criteria

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.