Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray (2nd nomination)

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 . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Blu-ray[edit]

and all subpages

Narrow scope. This was previously nominated for deletion during the Portal RFC, but was closed on procedural grounds pending the outcome of the RFC. While Portal space wasn't deleted, this is still an absurdly narrowly scoped portal. Plantdrew (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not meet WP:POG. Poor content to sustain a portal.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete back then we were told we should keep everything to give the WikiProject Portals time to develop a guideline. Instead of doing that they tripled the number of portals and now openly say the portal guidelines are to be ignored. Sorry but all participants in this mess deserve credit for this mess. Any one of them could have said - hey let's create some guidelines instead of spamming 4500 portals on Wikipedia have a lot of editors voted to shut down the space because of poor maintenance and silly narrow focus pages. Legacypac (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, narrow topic where the portal does not add much value. The old manual version has static content that requires manual updating, which hasn't happened for more than ten years. So delete the subpages as well. —Kusma (t·c) 09:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realize there were subpages, I've added them to the nom, though they could go go G8 if this is deleted. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't realize that portals could have subpages, and I don't know what the use of portal subpages is, but I don't really understand the value of portals themselves. As User:Legacypac says, if a portal is deleted, the subpages are automatically deleted, and we have a code for that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All portals prior to the one click automated versions had subpages. Subpages don't get deleted unless some one CSDs them, which needs to be done if the closing admin does not take care of it here. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:POG --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was criticism of this portal in the previous deletion discussion. It was kept to wait for the outcome of the pending RFC on ending portals as deprecated. As we know, the decision was that portals were not ended, but that instead of any reform or improvement to portals, there have been thousands of new portals created recklessly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The comment by User:SmokeyJoe is appropriate: "Portals and WikiProjects are remnants of the exponential growth phase of Wikipedia, which ended 2006-2008."
Weak Delete based on failure to address either the specific criticisms in the previous MFD or the general issues with portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I am not sure I said that about WikiProjects. Portals, absolutely. Some WikiProjects are still active and useful. One example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. WikiProjects, unlike Portals, do not intend their audience to be non-editor readers. WikiProjects are editor organisations, not content forks. Portals possibly once were intended by some to stimulate editor activity, but I am unaware of it ever happening. Portals lack advice on how to help. I don’t think Portals should be tied to WikiProjects in any way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - You said that. You know better than we do what context you intended. You said that, right in the MFD to which I refer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, what MFD do you refer to? I am looking for where is said this, but I am not finding it. The statement applies to Portals for sure. It is arguable, but less clear, for WikiProjects. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User:SmokeyJoe - See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blu-ray. I agree with you that it definitely applies to portals and is a plausible position about WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! And Portals are the worse problem, forking content, of no sure productive purpose, almost entirely moribund. WikiProjects, however, include some worthwhile cases, and they don’t confuse readers, if found by readers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC

User:SmokeyJoe - So you did say it, as the written record proves, and it is your opinion on portals, whether or not it also applies to WikiProjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is effectively a large chunk of code and policy document regarding licencing. I can't see sufficient content being identified for its use.

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.