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: no consensus . Call it a procedural close if you like, or even a WP:TRAINWRECK, but I find the arguments for bulk deletion here weak, especially those with ad hominem focus on the creator rather than the content of the content. More to the point, the others, while in the minority, make very good arguments that the variety of individuals nominated here makes this an unproductive venue for discussion barring a broader consensus on such topics.

No prejudice against nomination of each individually or in other smaller and more relevant groups. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These portals were all created on 2018-12-30 by the same user. They are all on individual people with few constituent articles, failing WP:POG. SITH (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete random single person topics don't warrent a portal. Rapid fire bulk creation deserves at least bulk deletion. Same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brandy Norwood and a whole bunch of other pages about single individuals that have been deleted already. Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Keep all. This is yet another miscellaneous batch. Some of these clearly have sufficient material to make a decent portal. I'd highlight the British ones, Portal:Queen Victoria (where the lead article is an FA that gets 39,255 views daily), Portal:Diana, Princess of Wales (B-class lead with 9,942 daily page views) and Portal:Margaret Thatcher (GA lead with 7,294 daily page views), where there looks to be plenty of material and high reader interest in the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep all after seeing the adjacent bulk nomination by the same nominator. There is no delete rationale. The nominator has plainly not examined each portal in sufficient detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:X3 we already established over many MfDs that single person portals generally fail portal guidelines and these mass created automated portals have many problems. If you can't articulate a reason to keep each portal on the list please don't impose unreasonable demands for us to discuss them one by one by every loving one for a week when they were created at speeds of 5 or 6 per minute. Thank-you for pointing out page views for these content forks. Portal:Queen Victoria has 52 pageviews in 30 days. That is background noise, mainly from bots, level traffic. Numbers don't lie. The others are similar. Yelson got 52 page views. Dianna 90 page views. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice to nominating smaller, more thought out groups. As Espresso Addict has noted, there are plenty of major biographical topics included in this nomination. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. In addition to the argument that, since no thought was put into creation, little argument should be required for deletion, this is a reasonably-sized chunk. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All - As Arthur Rubin says, no thought was put into creation. However, I do not object to a procedural close. This is very much a mixed bag, consisting mostly of historical heads of state and heads of government, but not entirely. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, making sure there aren't any intermediate edits. Many if not all of these pass WP:POG and deserve a portal if someone who's not automated wants to adopt them. SportingFlyer T·C 08:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion; it is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep and nominate separately. In my opinion, the grouping here is too diverse, and would better discussed on a case-by-case basis in separate discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Every single one of these portals is automated spam, created by the infamous portalspammer @The Transhumanist. It is ridiculous that the community is forced to have lengthy discussions on even batched groups of this spam, when the portsalspammer created each of them in seconds simply by typing ((subst:quick portal)) (or a similar template).

I have checked each of the portals, and every one draws its article list solely from a single navbox. This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox, with much less utility than the navbox because:

• the navbox displays a full list of the articles, but the portal displays only one page at a time.
• the navbox should be present on every page in the set. The portal always requires navigation to a separate page.

The topic's main page works much better as a navigational hub, because it includes:

• both the topic navbox and any related navboxes
• A full summary of the topic rather than an excerpt of the lede.

Note that this nomination is about navigation between wikiedia articles. It is not in any way a judgement on significance of the people they potray. The problem here is simply that these automated spam portals are an impediment to navigation, luring readers onto pages which add no value to the head article.

It may be that in some cases a properly-curated portal could be created on some of these topics, which added signifucant value beyond the navbox. I have not attempted to check that, but if any editor wants to do so, then there is no need to have this hanging around -- they could be re-created in seconds.

These automated spam portals such a this are simply a waste of readers' time. The portals fans' opposition to speedy deletio now means that they are wasting huge amounts of editors time. This tactic of requiring close scrutiny of every single page created by a spammer is the most blatant exercise in WP:Gaming the system that I have sen for a long time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pageviews. I just checked the pageviews of for Portal:Queen Victoria, for the calendar months of Feb and March 2019, before the views were distorted by listing at MFD. The result is 67 views in those 59 days. That's 1.16 views/day, or 8 views/week ... which is so low that it quite possible that it may consist solely of web-crawling bots.

The evidence is clear: even on a highly significant topic such as Queen Victoria, readers simply are not interested in these bloated navboxes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 10 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.