Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pigs (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pigs

Portal:Pigs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Waste (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A pair of automated pseudo-portals, each a

WP:REDUNDANTFORK
of a navbox and of the head article.

  • Portal:Pigs: The selected articles list is drawn solely from the navbox {{Pigs}}, which is transcluded in the head article Pig.
  • Portal:Waste: The selected articles list is drawn solely from the navbox {{Waste}}, which is transcluded in the head article Waste

In each case, the article and the navbox are each much better navigational tools than this page, because they display all the links simultaneously, whereas the portal displays them only one-at-time. The preview function of the portal is only redundant, because for readers who are not logged in (i.e. the overwhelming majority) mouseover on link shows the picture and the start of the lede.

Level-5 VA
(i.e. in the 10,001–50,000 range of priority topics). Given the very poor shape of many much higher-priority portals, there is no reason to expect an influx of editors to curate and maintain portals on these topics.

However, those issues are probably best decided at an

WP:REDUNDANTFORK, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

About the G7 deletion: at [G7-criterion], we have If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. At [wmflabs] we see that one author contributed 2,685 bytes (84.4%). But another one contributed 392 bytes (12.3%) with the following edit: {{Transclude selected current events | %spig%s | %spigs%s| %shog%s | %shogs%s | %spork%s | %sbacon%s | %sham%s | %shams%s | days=45 | header={{Box-header colour|In the news }}|max=6}} . Using such a poor selection chain was a major reason to delete this contribution (selecting "sea pig", "blind pig", "dancing pig", "ham radio", "Taylor's ham", was clearly harmful). As a result, User:Hut 8.5 decided that such a major reason to delete was substantial and thus declined the G7-request. Let us wait another week, the world will not crumble. Pldx1 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5 declined the G7 because it has survived MfD, per their edit summary, not because someone else had added content. * Pppery * has returned 23:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Pppery, how are you doing to replace when applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions, which is policy, by something like: "no creator is allowed to a change of mind and require the G7-deletion of a page that survived to a MfD proposed by someone else" ? But, you know, there is no deadline. Pldx1 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that question should have been directed to Hut 8.5, rather than me. * Pppery * has returned 11:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pages which have survived deletion discussions don't qualify for G7.
WT:CSD is that way. Hut 8.5 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - The pig portal is still there, and the waste portal is not, because the pigs ate the waste. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I previously nominated this and four other mammal portals for deletion and the result was a nearly unanimous Keep. I recognize that BHG's analysis is better than mine was, but isn't this nomination a little too soon after the previous Keep? Aren't we relitigating this prematurely? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting the breadth-of-subject area requirements of the
    WP:POG guideline. If the reason for the nom. has changed, a new MfD is appropriate and not a relitigation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Portal:Pigs - clearly a broad topic. The format of the current portal and the way it was created means it might need some work, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. WaggersTALK 10:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Waggers:, your assertion that format of the current portal and the way it was created means it might need some work, but that's not a valid reason for deletion is simply wrong. The consensus to delete portals forked off navboxes was established only two weeks ago at one of the biggest-scope and most widely-attended MFDs ever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: That was a separate MfD and this portal was not included in the nomination. The consensus there relates specifically to the portals that were nominated there, not to a general principle. It was not consensus for a new deletion criterion to be added to the deletion policy. WaggersTALK 11:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, @
          WP:CENT
The same principle has been upheld in many dozens of MFD discussions since. It is plain
tendentious that you try to reargue that point from the ground up after multiple MFDs; it's simply wasting the community's time in wikilawyering against a clear consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
If there is consensus that the deletion policy should be changed, then it should be changed. That consensus has not been established and MfD is not the place to do it. As things stand, the format of a portal or the way it was created are irrelevant to whether or not it should exist. What matters is scope, and this topic has sufficient scope for a portal to exist. WaggersTALK 08:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Newer, very low-readership portal that is redundant to the long-standing, (somewhat) higher-readership portals for mammals and animals. --RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Pigs_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=896245229"