Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aquinas College, Perth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was delete. Daniel 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Aquinas College, Perth

Portal focuses on a narrow scope, and Wikipedia is not intended for free website/portal hosting. -- Longhair\^talk 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair\^talk 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, far too narrow in scope. – Riana ⁂ 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Co-ordination to improve article can be done on talk page. Recurring dreams 11:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: far too narrow.--cj | talk 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that the portals scope isnt too narrow, it would have some 50-100 daughter articles, the school itself, its buildings, surrounds, former and current staff and the notable alumni. The school is highly notable in the Western Australian education system, and i feel that this just adds a little bit to the encyclopedia. Good to see young wikipedians getting enthusiastic. Twenty Years 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Portal scope is way too narrow, a mainspace article would have been much more appropriate, not the portal namespace. Regards — The Sunshine Man 11:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Portal:Public Schools Association already covers this school and a few related schools. John Vandenberg 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - too narrow in scope, is basically a portal dedicated to one article. Orderinchaos 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would beg to differ on the idea that it is basically about one article - think about the buildings, surrounds, notable current and former staff/headmasters alumni articles and various others (eg. PSA and JSHAA) - i would put it at 50-100 articles and if thats not enough for a portal, how much is? Twenty Years 13:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The lack of a Portal:Perth should be a good yardstick. John Vandenberg 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be somewhat concerned that the creation of a Portal or Wikiproject might lead to the mass creation of non-notable articles which then take up the community's time in a venue like this - while there's been a lot of good work happening recently, there has also been quite a number of XfDs (templates, categories, redirects, articles etc) in the past 5 months from related articles. Orderinchaos 04:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Convert to WikiProject - the portal looks more like a Wikiproject, with participants' names, jobs to do, etc.; and not the informative information that a Portal like Portal:Australia would contain. Things like the latest news on introducing scarfs into the uniform are clearly not notable for a portal, but a WikiProject to coordinate articles would be more helpful than deleting this full stop. JRG 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, far to narrow in scope -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - from Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines: portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. I don't think AC meets that description. I know others may disagree.Garrie 05:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sorry, but I have to side with the nom here. While I know that Years (And his previous WP life) along with countless others have committed a significant body of work to WP in their improving the information about WA Private Schools in the last year, the scope of the Aquinas Portal is too narrow per the portal guidelines. The PSA Portal as noted by John Vandenberg would be a much better place for the work. If a Wikiproject was to be initiated as an outcome, this project again would be better aligned to the PSA Portal. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Strong Keep While my comments still stand, I have changed my vote to a strong keep on account of the backdoor attempt to include Portal:Public Schools Association in this deletion by Gnangara. This is inappropriate and should be handled in a different MfD altogether. If this had been done as he himself noted, this could have easily been closed as snowball. Thewinchester ^(talk) 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since its inclusion had been suggested by two other editors first, and that both portals are the same thing created by the editors of the Aquinas College Portal including some of their sockpuppets. Its only logical to include in the same MfD, which is normal and accepted practise for deletion discussions. Portal:Public Schools Association has been moved by Orderinchaos to a seperate MfD. Gnangarra 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, scope is far too narrow for a portal or even a WikiProject. --Coredesat 07:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, scope is really a little too narrow. (By the way, shouldn't this be at MfD, and not here?). Lankiveil 10:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's at MfD, you're probably editing via the transcluded Australia-related deletions page? -- Longhair\^talk 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for pointing out the obvious to oblivious me =). Lankiveil 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC).

• Delete this and Portal:Public Schools Association. Those who on't think these topics are too narrow for a portal should consider the fact that Portal:Sydney was considered too narrow. JPD (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete agree that this is too narrow a subject scope, have just add the MfD notice to included Portal:Public Schools Association diff otherwise I would have closed this as WP:SNOW, Gnangarra 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On consideration I think that should be the subject of a separate MfD (which I'll open now procedurally) Orderinchaos 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above discussion. Bearian 16:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per comments regrding narrowness of scope above. However, creation of a separate project or task force dealing with the same subject, if it had sufficient support, would probably be a decent idea and could accomplish much the same thing. Also, creation of a template linking the related articles is another possibility. John Carter 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Scope too narrow. --Deskana (AFK 47) 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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.