Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Robert Schumann

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Robert Schumann

Fails

WP:POG. Although we have more than 20 articles in scope, the guideline also expects that there are enough articles above start class within the portal scope to populate the featured content section, and basically all the articles in scope (compositions) seem to be stub-or start-class. In any case the selected article appears to be broken and always gives me the same article. There are several other portals about classical composers with similar issues, e.g. Mendelssohn. Hut 8.5 16:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete insufficent featurable content. Single person/artist portals are generally a bad idea because we only usually have one article on a person plus some short articles on their works. I would only look supporting at a portal where there are multiple quality articles about the person themselves. Otherwise the portal becomes a lite version (lacking refs, content) of the article about the person. We don't allow content forks. Legacypac (talk)
Comment. I think Schumann is potentially a valid topic, and I strongly disagree with Legacypac's comment that such portals represent content forks. I'm confused as to why the automated system isn't finding other articles as spot checking articles from the template reveals plenty that are not tagged as stubs; perhaps someone who knows how it works can comment? However, at present the article for Robert Schumann has an orange-level tag which should preclude use in a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POG expects articles above start-class to populate the selected articles section, not just articles above stub-class. There are plenty of start-class articles in scope here but they should be at least C. I don't think the element is restricting itself to articles of a particular quality rating, I've seen it select stub articles before. Hut 8.5 09:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

don't know, don't care, because the editors that spammed these out a 5 or 6 a minute clearly don't care enough to make them work. Legacypac (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aaaa. Aaaa. These portals created in the last week of December 2018 are like a stuck 880 hertz tone. But we can delete them so that we don't have the tragic end of the subject of the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Aaaa. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed the portal and believe it passes
WP:POG. (The selected article is broken on other portals too, I think it's a coding issue. Nor is this a content fork.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I have a copy-and-paste delete vote for some portals, but this one is a personal vote. Aaaa. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 2 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.