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, although no prejudice against renomination of Portal:Bears, as it was the only one which garnered a delete comment, so maybe it should be discussed separately. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Mammal Portals

[edit]

We don't need Portal:Pigs, Portal:Cetaceans, or Portal:Rabbits and hares if we have Portal:Mammals. I leave it to others whether we need a mammal portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a big bundle. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Legacypac - Go ahead and add any more mammals to this bundle. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now but Portal:Mammals is about the right level of depth in my view. We don't need Portal:Cows Portal:Horses Portal:Bears, Portal:Donkeys and so on (just to pick some examples I have not checked) Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All — Oppose deletion as it appears to me there may be a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge as to the depth of individual mammalian topics, which would include humans. We have Portal:Primates, and Portal:Chess, but according to the above, the former should be deleted and included in Portal:Mammal, and the latter should be included in Portal:Board games. If portals are for the benefit of our readers, then we need the above named portals. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – Oppose deletion in part as per Atsme above. Upon actually researching these five portals separately from the standpoint of content availability on Wikipedia, these portals are all easily expandable. Also unimpressed with the "delete all" opinions above ("this could be a big bundle", "Go ahead and add any more mammals to this bundle"), as this suggests that the portals are not being considered on a case-by-case basis, but rather, upon subjective criteria, such as, "we don't need..."-style and "I don't like it"-style arguments, as has unfortunately become commonplace lately at MfD. Additionally, Portal:Horses was formerly a featured portal until the featured portal process ceased in 2017. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user created about 70 automated portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what? My !vote is about these portals, not some other portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's WikiProject Equine, WikiProject Cetaceans, and many other mammal projects despite also having WikiProject Mammals.… --Nessie (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. There are plenty of mammalian topics that have a great deal of coverage. Horses in particular is a former featured portal and could be restored if it's been trashed. Cetaceans is a very broad topic and was also created long before The Transhumanist turned their attention to portals. In fact only two of these were created by that user or recently. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per comments above. Horses is a featured portal, well-designed, and though the person who created it isn’t around any more, it is set up to self-maintain certain parts, and is useful to those seeking more informative on the topic. WikiProject Equine includes several thousand articles, not just on animal breeds, but also the sport aspects. I support keeping the major mammal portals, though not every species necessarily needs one. Horses are particularly unique and the GA articles fallng under this rubric range from paralymic athletes to rare and endangered animal breeds. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all maintained portals. It seems to me that the important features are that the portal covers a broad enough subject and has editors actively maintaining it. Extremely narrow portals will have little interest to readers and portals that aren't maintained won't have sufficient quality. So this support would only apply to portals that existed before the bout of automatic portal creation (e.g. the horses one). I think it would be a good idea if portals were attached to a project or task force to ensure that there are editors with an interest in maintaining it. Jts1882 | talk 08:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all pre-2018 portals. The topics here are good choices for portals, but the portals themselves need work. I expect manually maintaining a couple of "selected articles" lists would work better than the navbox-based full automation. DYK sections also should be manually curated, so you don't get silly stuff like SS Clifton appearing on Portal:Cetaceans. Revert old portals to last human version, consider deleting or fixing the rest. —Kusma (t·c) 10:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Horses definitely. This is a Featured portal, which actually encompasses a broad and interesting subject area and has well-curated sections and dozens of FA or GA articles and FPs in its rotation. I would also support keeping all Featured portals and probably all those with a designated maintainer. In any case, such portals should be not batched into group MfDs like this one. If there are to be batched MfDs, they should be for demonstrably awful, neglected, and/or bizarrely narrow portals with insufficient GAs and FAs to support them. Anything else is simply an attempted end-run around the Village Pump RfC which was closed as "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep as broad topics of major encyclopedic interest. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Portal:Bears (the only TTH creation in this batch). No effort was put into creating it and the results are garbage. Only one of the DYKs is about the animal; the others are using "bear" as a verb (e.g. "...ensure it could bear the weight of students..."). Selected images include an ocelot, a seal, a raccoon, and a wolf. Plantdrew (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am now satisfied that Portal:Horses will be kept, and more generally that most of the pre-2018 portals will be kept. I am not withdrawing this nomination, because we can see how much confusion a Withdraw has caused. I note that the equids and the odd-toes are up for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All broad topics with various stems branching off. Useful for navigation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them And also please go to Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Guidelines#What_reasons_should_a_portal_be_deleted? to participate in there to determine specific guidelines to avoid pointless deletion nominations like this one. Dream Focus 03:35, 28 March 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.