Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For media for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files for discussion. For modules for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

A filtered version of the page that excludes nominations of pages in the draft namespace is available at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts.

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
• Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
• Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted) Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process. I. Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transclued pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page II. Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. III. Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions. If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page. For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~ to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion. If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages. If you are nominating a Portal, please make a note of your nomination here. If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	0	3	40	43
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	0	23	23
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

March 23, 2023

Draft:Ram subramanian

Draft:Ram subramanian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Appears to be a hoax. The vast majority of the sources here (down to the misleadingly labeled IMDB link at the bottom of the page) are about a man named "Mahesh Bhatt". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

March 21, 2023

Draft:2023 Israeli municipal elections

Draft:2023 Israeli municipal elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Article is a duplicate of a mainspace article Totalstgamer (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• History merge, noting User:Totalstgamer’s 14:27, 10 January 2023‎ copy-paste, following a period of accidental content forking. Remarkably, the content forking occurs with clean non-overlapping periods, making the History merge viable. Or redirect per WP:SRE. I recommend one of these over deletion, even though Totalstgamer might have the draft deleted simply by invoking WP:G7. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

March 20, 2023

Portal:Japanese football

Portal:Japanese football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This page shows potential but needs further development before it is ready for Portal: namespace. Userify for now? Certes (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Is that something we'd do for portals? I can't tell whether or not they'd be subject to the same criteria as articlespace. It's fairly recent too, about a month old. Personally, I'd much rather weak keep this to see if there will be any further development. At the present time, it's not harming the encyclopedia to have it around, much as I feel that portals don't occupy a useful niche. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact, we have basically no guidelines when it comes to portals now, since WP:POG is a failed proposal, nor do we have any conditions under which we'd CSD. We're in portal limbo. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

March 19, 2023

Draft:Compact crossover SUV

Draft:Compact crossover SUV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This article was created by an editor subsequently blocked then banned for prolific (and still ongoing) sockpuppetry. As this editor can no longer legitimately edit it then the only reason to keep it would be if someone else would take up the mantle - and no-one is doing so. However, there has been a subsequent edit to the page by one of the socks so it continues to be one incentive bringing the sock repeatedly back and it would be best to delete it now rather than wait until WP:G13 applies. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Report your observations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrDavr.

Don’t be a random user attempting SPI clerking at MfD. If the checkusers or SPI clerks thinks this should be deleted, let them say so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. The page was created prior to the block for sockpuppetry so I had not expected that would be an appropriate venue. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

“Subsequent edits by socks” is something to add to the SPI case page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirect to Crossover (automobile)#Compact crossover SUV (C-segment). Drafts should not be used to fork mainspace content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect as per SmokeyJoe. We don't want to delete a valid search term from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

March 18, 2023

Portal:Cats/Selected article

Portal:Cats/Selected article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This subpage and associated sub-subpages were recently replaced by a different template in Portal:Cats while I was cleaning that portal up. Therefore, I am requesting that this subpage and its sub-subpages be deleted as unused/deprecated. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Current

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Current (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

This page is supposed to include manual descriptions of edit filters, but has never done so. Currently it is just an outdated snapshot of Special:AbuseFilter. It's also unclear to me what manual description of filters is needed beyond its title. Right now it just seems to mislead people into thinking there's information here, e.g. see Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Query_on_Edit_Filters. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. I basically agree. There is a case to be made for having public long-descriptions (summaries, categorisations, instructions, etc), but it would take some work and this is not it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Userfy and Archive. Replace User:Xaosflux’s {{Outdated}} tagging with {{Historical}}, and blank the content, and move to User:Dragons flight/Edit filter/Current. User:Dragons flight may keep it indefinitely, and may have it deleted at any time by tagging it {{db-u1}}. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Equally good is: Soft delete, allow userfication by the author should they request it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  It does not belong in projectspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete or Soft Delete - Allow User:Dragons flight to refund it on request if they have a use for it. Apparently has not had any use. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and zzuuzz. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

March 17, 2023

Portal:Tanks

Portal:Tanks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Very poorly maintained portal. This is not a big enough topic to populate. Arbitrary selection of selected articles: a mix of start-, B- and C-class articles, plus some GA and featured articles. Selection contains items that are not tanks or tank-related (e.g. Heuschrecke 10, SU-100, Aleksandr Vasilevsky). One selected image, File:Char-FCM-2c camouflaged.jpg, is deleted from Commons. There is both a "General images" section and a "Selected images" section. Why? Truly puzzling. Schierbecker (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tank: Redirect to the article it was to be a portal to. The article tank serves readers much better than the portal ever could. Nearly all moribund portals could be quietly archived like this. There is no justification in deletion of most portals. MfD should not be used to process moribund portals one by one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose semi-random deletion of portals. Most are moribund and should be archived, or deleted, or transformed into WikiPeoject pages. Some few portals are defensible. Something systematic should be done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear:

  1st preference: archive, and archive all moribund portals.

  2nd preference: delete, and delete all moribund portals.

  3rd preference: No nothing, continue to link and present in maintained out of date information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep – There is no requirement that portals must be constantly maintained. It is easy for the portal to be expanded, because lots of quality content exists on Wikipedia about tanks on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the page is functional and used by WP:READERS. As of this post, the page has received an average of 99 page views per day over the last thirty days. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

As BHG said, the amount of views a portal gets doesn't mean anything if the portal isn't properly maintained. It's a distraction at best and misinformation at worst. We shouldn't be serving outdated material to our readers when the articles can do the job just fine.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Also, I removed the deleted image at Commons from the portal. This took about three seconds. The General images section is exactly what it is, "images from various tank-related articles on Wikipedia", and is in place to provide readers with additional information through a visual overview of the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is very little quality content about tanks on Wikipedia. Take it from an editor who is active in this space. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. Schierbecker (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not a fan of portals and have not previously looked at this one. I am inclined to agree with all of the nominator's reasons, but feel that they amount to a rag bag of "I don't like it" with no basis in policy. I can't see how this amounts to a reason to remove a long-standing part of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: Previous MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanks Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete. Like most portals, this one is not maintained, and, arguably worse, is a poor combination of a mini-Main Page and WikiProject central (the "Things to do" section, etc, is certainly not appropriate for a reader-facing page). The duplicate General Images & Selected Images sections are also a mark against it. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete Moribund portal. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as a stalled and unmaintained portal. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete, echoing entirely the rationale given by BrownHairedGirl in the previous discussion. As a second preference, deprecate and archive as SmokeyJoe suggests, but in the understanding that the portal link would be removed from all pages on which it's used either way. A systematic approach to the question of moribund portals is something that should be considered. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete as less helpful to our readers than the main tank article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Delete – Very little has changed since 2019. The Keep voters 3½ years ago said, with respect to various issues, that those could be fixed. Yes, and they may say the same thing again, but it is obvious that nothing is being fixed. User:Northamerica1000 tweaks portals when they are nominated for deletion. That hasn't changed since 2019. This is just waving a dead rat. The portal has rats (and a tank is not the most effective weapon to use against rats).
  • • An editor states that there is no requirement that portals be actively maintained. That statement is true but useless. There are no requirements about portals. The portal guidelines were never properly approved, and an RFC to approve what had previously been thought to be the portal guidelines did not receive a consensus in 2019. This means that the guideline that applies to portals is use common sense, but common sense is not always in evidence when it comes to portals.
    • Portal enthusiasts have not provided a consistent explanation of why they want portals. My conclusion is that portals are seen as having some mystical value. That would explain why their advocates cannot explain why they want them. (I am more interested in two other forms of mysticism, one of which is two thousand years old, and the other of which has recently received new attention.)
    • This portal, like most old portals, has an unsound architecture, in which subpages have partial copies of the selected articles, so that the reader who uses the portal is looking at an old version of the article. The subpage is a content fork. A better architecture is used for some more recent portals in which the selected articles are transcluded rather than copied. But changing the architecture of an old portal would be blowing it up and starting over, and we might as well just blow it up.
    • This portal was created in 2008, and was not maintained between 2013 and 2019, when it was tweaked in order to preserve it, and has had occasional tweaks since then, but still has forked subpages.
    • In the year 2021, this portal had an average of 107 daily page views, which makes it one of the more frequently viewed portals, but that means that editors were viewing poorly maintained copies, sometimes not current, of pages that were not being maintained. The main article tank had 1263 daily page views, and its readers could learn more about the subject via links and categories.
    • SmokeyJoe writes:

      Oppose semi-random deletion of portals. Most are moribund and should be archived, or deleted, or transformed into WikiPeoject pages. Some few portals are defensible. Something systematic should be done

      .
    • Yes, doing something systematic would be a good idea, and would have been a good idea in 2019, but an effort at developing a new set of portal guidelines fizzled out. In the meantime, we are here, and this is a moribund portal. It would still or again be a good idea to do something systematic about these unmaintained portals, such as delete them.
    • What is meant by archiving them, anyway? Does that mean blank and redirect them to the main articles? Why?
    • I think that efforts to do something systematic about abandoned or moribund portals are unlikely to succeed because the advocacy of portals is mystical.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Delete: Oh boy, portals portals portals. This is only a mini home page and a WikiProject to do list (???) and unmaintained. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per Robert McClenon, and other detailed deletion arguments in the past MfD, which are still very relevant. I believe that a suggestion to redirect as an alternative rests not on the utility of the redirect (utility ~ 0), but on the idea that MfD was not necessary and economical in the first place, especially seeing how there are many portals that deserve the same treatment, so if we were to bring each of them to MfD it would be a waste of time. But successful "quiet" BLARing seems unrealistic. Maybe a few of those could be tried though. —Alalch E. 23:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
• Seeing the vote is heavily tilted towards delete, I would suggest redirecting to Portal:War as the closest related portal instead. –Vipz (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Redirecting a very thin portal to a less thin portal is a very good idea, and I encourage someone to do this boldly, and to only come to MfD if they are opposed (eg their redirect edit is reverted). SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

“What is meant by archiving them, anyway? Does that mean blank and redirect them to the main articles? Why?”

Archiving can include “blank and redirect”, which devolves to “redirect”. Redirect to the main article, because that is the best place to go to instead. Why not just delete? For the sake of wikiarcheology. Because Portals are Wikipedia history, and it is always better to keep history available to wikiarcheologists than to delete it. Deletion should be reserved for things that should not have been created in the first place.

Another reason to archive is that archiving can be done boldly, can be done without feeding each through and mfd process.

I know that no one else supports archiving over deletion. That disappoints me. If Portal pages are not to be archived, then deletion is my second preference. I see them as having no ongoing useful role in the project.

Of course it will be better to do something systematic, over doing this one at a time per portal. This is not intended to be a reason to keep, this one this week. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I'm sympathetic to the Wikiarcheology argument, and would be more in favor of it, if I knew there were a significant interest in content preservation across Wikipedia. Even formalizing it as a type of Wikifauna would be a good idea, as then that could be something used as an argument to keep at deletion discussions. As it currently stands, my stance is that portals are worse than useless, and that the lack of updates and maintenance while definitions and events are changing would actually bring harm to Wikipedia. But I don't disagree with your general point. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.

I wanted to be clear that my preference to archive is not a !vote to “keep”, as in do nothing and let them continue. I believe that Portals are a net negative to the project, negative in reader experience, as well as negative in the consumption of volunteer time. What I don’t understand, and would like to understand one day, is why several quality Wikipedians support the continuance of portals. A form of mysticism? A sentimental attachment to portals in the pre search engine days of the internet? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: portals being 'a form of mysticism' is a subjective view. Many things may seem weird until you acquaint yourself with them. They are like the Main Page but for specific topics. –Vipz (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Subjective, yes. These words are someone else’s. I find the notion very interesting. Humans can have strong irrational drive for mysticism. There could be something in this notion.

Portals are like the Main Page? Yes. The Main Page, the Wikipedia landing page, is very successful. Do lesser “Main Pages” add, or detract, from the purpose of the Main Page? I think the top ~10 Portals do did, but the rest detract. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As BrownHairedGirl put it in the last nom for this portal: Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors. A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article. And in this case, that work has not been done, so GB's analysis shows that the portal doesn't add value for readers. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates