Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods

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 all. MER-C 21:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods[edit]

23 recently created Portals for neighborhoods in Portland. We do not need portals on every neighborhood for every medium size city in even the USA. Portal:Portland, Oregon and Portal:Oregon as well as Portal:Portland Timbers, Portal:Portland Trail Blazers and Portal:University of Portland for good measure. I have have not tagged every portal listed as it would flood the creator's talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Portals[edit]

Comment: You didn't mention how these portals qualify for deletion per the deletion policy and guidelines. Your opinion that we don't need them is synonymous with WP:IDLI (3rd example). — The Transhumanist 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) These are indiscriminately created with no thought put into what they should display. Creating these portals was irresponsible. We don't need portals that are so narrow a topic as to have individual houses as feature articles, or in one case a burned building as a feature photo. Since there is no guidelines that govern creation of automated portals, I don't need to cite any guideline for deletion - just that we don't need them. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - But consider the suggestion of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that we need a mass-destruction authority, like Neely redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and they were all created as WP:ILIKEIT. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no chance of becoming useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A portal like Portal:Alameda, Portland, Oregon has 1 "selected article", 2 poor images (certainly at the size used in these portals), no subcategories, and 4 subtopics. Luckily hardly anyone ever see this, as it is a totally useless portal. Portal:Arbor Lodge, Portland, Oregon has one rather boring picture, and two selected articles about light rail stations. No subcategories, 4 subtopics. The others at first glance mostly share these characteristics. Fram (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon two similar photos of street signs, 0 subcategories and 5 subtopics: a rail stn, a park, sculptures in the same park, a house and a restaurant. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and create a Transhumanist speedy deletion category This needs to end. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not an improvement over not having these portals. A section about neighbourhoods and their features in Portal:Portland, Oregon would likely work much better. —Kusma (t·c) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neelix — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per above (and below, with all the nominated portals). Though, it would be fine to create some criteria for portal eligibility. –eggofreason^talk 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand "We do not need" them as a justification for deletion. Does it hurt the project that these portals exist? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the absense of any approval or guideline for the mass creation of portals, "we don't need them" is as good a reason as any to seek deletion, but in this cases a number of very good reasons have been identified. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How or how many portals were created is irrelevant. You need to show how the pages do not meet current portal standards, and these do.

Also, notice must be posted at the top of each page to be deleted, per Deletion policy. Something you are quite familiar with. — The Transhumanist 10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged each page at your request. This creates many unneccessary deletion discussion pages. I will seek a relaxation of this requirement now. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: That template was designed for deletion discussions with a one-to-one ratio to pages nominated for deletion. For multi-page nominations, you can use a copy-pasted notice that leads them all to the same MfD page, avoiding the creation of superfluous mfd pages that do nothing but point to the multi-mfd nomination page as soft redirects. — The Transhumanist 20:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you want me to manually nominate for deletion your script created portals? Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly normal that the community's actual standards are decided at MFD, and then codified into a guideline later. We are not bound by the description at Wikipedia:Portal (which was mostly written by you). There is evidence of strong opposition against micro-portals on the talk page, so it should not come as a surprise that people want to delete these now. —Kusma (t·c) 10:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Yikes. That's a lot of unnecessary portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe cases according to the creator [1] Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too narrow in scope for a portal, after waiting for the usual week in case anyone wishes to save particular portals as exceptionally valuable. Certes (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any have some particular additional notability that would warrant a portal, as per Certes. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of these neighborhoods are "broad subject areas" as described in Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. The portals don't provide a meaningful aid to navigation—it seems to me that all of the articles linked in the portals are better presented in the associated neighborhood templates (e.g., Template:St. Johns, Portland, Oregon). Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:17, 4 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.