Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears

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 debate was No consensus, except regarding Portal:The Vines which is being deleted, and relisting the others separately. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content, see Wikipedia:Portal. I think that in these cases, the subject is too specific and a portal is unnecessary. I also nominate in this Mfd :

• Portal:Madonna (entertainer) (it's strange because this page doesn't seem to have a history, the parenthesis disappear when I click on history, is it common to the portal namespace ?, now it works fine..).
• Portal:Mariah Carey
• Portal:Sheryl Crow
• Portal:My Chemical Romance
• Portal:Motörhead
• Portal:The Vines

all for the same reasons.

I have not nominated Portal:The Beatles, Portal:Led Zeppelin and Portal:U2 because I think that their subject is broad enough, though they all need a major cleanup.

Another similar Mfd is ongoing: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé Knowles and I share the reasons advanced for deletion there. Of course I include the subpages of these portals in this nomination. I have similar concerns for: Portal:Powderfinger but this Mfd is now engaged so I can't add it there, I have engaged an Mfd here. Cenarium (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I add that in each case, the main article can serve the purpose of a portal except the Did You Know which, in these cases, can be considered trivia (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Powderfinger for an explanation of my point of view, essentially because, again, the scope is too limited and the purpose of DYK is to highlight new pages), and trivia sections are discouraged. Cenarium (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep scope is not limited.--Alf ^melmac 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, this is a multiple Mfd, do you think that we should keep all of them ? -- Cenarium (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't looked at all of them yet, the one I have been involved in has over sixty articles, including biographies, joint ventures, a book (should be three in the end if no more are published before writing the articles), discography and pages on the albums, singles, EPs and singles themselves.--Alf ^melmac 17:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, I think that the main article can handle the content of Wikipedia on this band, which is not the case, for example, for The Beatles. Cenarium (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and having had a look at the Beatles portal am surprised that the navigation to related articles is difficult from there, it has also given me an idea for even more related pages which I will add should the portal survive this deletion discussion.--Alf ^melmac 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that The Beatles portal requires a cleanup, but considering the amount of articles related to The Beatles on Wikipedia, this portal is useful. I think that it is not the case for the nominates. Cenarium (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be even more useful if one could get to those articles though, as one can on the Motorhead portal, I can understand nominating what looks like half finsihed work (Britney Spears portal) but not one as usefull as the Motorhead portal.--Alf ^melmac 18:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The links presented in Portal:Motörhead are already in the main article Motörhead as well as the content of the news section. The quotes box is, in my opinion, not necessary and can be transferred to Wikiquote. Cenarium (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the links are in the article (if we include the book being only in the references) but that is not a problem - it's a featured article and so should have most of the links and I wouldn't expect anyone to use that very comprehensive article for the purposes of navigation. I don't think, as a navigational tool, a portal should have a deficient amount of linking as the Beatles portal does, I believe the portal arangement is pretty standard, but I'm not an expert on what should be in a portal. There was no such comment at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Motörhead/archive1, although that did only attract one editor to comment there.--Alf ^melmac 18:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, I also think that portals should have enough links, but in these cases, I think that the portal overlaps with the main article (when I was talking about the links, I excluded those of the selected article, biography). Moreover, I don't think that these portals attract a lot of people (the peer review of Portal:Motörhead tends to confirm this). Cenarium (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware there was such a thing as portal reviews until I went looking at the original creator (of the portal)'s edits.--Alf ^melmac 19:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all, none of these are broad enough to need to a portal. Collectonian (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - I agree with the nom that these are too narrow for a portal. What's to stop a portal from being created for every musician if we allow these? We should only have portals for the most significant bands/artists, like the Beatles. Madonna and Britney Spears have a better argument for keeping, but I still think those are a tad too narrow for a portal. The other 5 certainly need to go, however. VegaDark (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikiproject? Sure. Portal? Not broad enough. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Can someone point me to where it says: the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content as stated in the nom? I see similar language Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria, but I'm not convinced that every Portal must be capable of being an FP. The scope of these portals is well in excess of the CSD criteria and I'm not sure that it's a great idea to nix portals simply because their scope is relatively narrow. I'm no fan of these portals, I would never use them myself, but that isn't grounds for deletion. I can't say that these are not "useful to the Project".--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  I would, however, suggest that these need to be completed pretty soon or they could be deleted, {{sofixit}} doesn't apply to someone creating a whole string of portals using the box template and just walking away from them. These have only been up a couple weeks though, so we should encourage the creator to get a move on rather than canning them so soon.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with User:John Carter's comments below. The nom needs to be split up and Portal:The Vines Speedied under P2. These combined nominations are very hard to discuss when they are actually unrelated.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I very much believe that this nomination should be closed and broken up again into individual specific nominations for each portal being considered. I am not going to address the issue of whether these portals are "broad enough" for a portal, because I don't think I am at all an authority on that matter. However, I would also like to add the following comments:
• Speedy delete - Portal:The Vines for not having the three required non-stubs for a portal.
• Delete - Portal:Sheryl Crow, which to the best of my ability to determine has only 5 articles which would qualify as non-stub.
• All the other portals have 10 or more articles which could legimately count as within their scope of Start class quality or better, and I am not counting biographies of at best marginally related individuals, like Warren Beatty for the Madonna portal, in those numbers. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all, too narrow in scope for portals to be useful here. krimpet✽ 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all, all of these portals have very narrow scopes. --Coredesat 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all – what is the problem with having a portal for a project? I think a lot of people are losing focus on what this project (the Wiki one that is) is all about, so honestly, if it assists a project to have a portal, what is the damage? – B.hotep ^u/_t• 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have seen several instances in which there are, apparently, multiple portals to single projects. On the basis of that, I tend to think that the editors above who think portals are, perhaps, required to be more "inclusive" than WikiProjects may be in disagreement with what seems to be a far from uncommon existing precedent. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of hierarchical status formally evolve, but, until and unless that takes place, I can't see that the attempts at differentiation above are necessarily valid, or, if they are, then we need to have some sort of clearer guidelines regarding such matters. Otherwise, Portal:Fort Stockton, Portal:Nunavut, Portal:Hamilton, Ontario, Portal:California Central Valley, Portal:Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Portal:Shreveport, Portal:City of Bankstown, Portal:Charles Dickens, Portal:Edgar Allan Poe, and several others would have to be considered for deletion on the same basis. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - too narrow in scope. Portals are primarily intended for navigation by readers, and I don't agree with the arguments linking their existence to wikiprojects. Addhoc (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Close as keep and renominate as separate nominations there are already some !votes above that are split - the closing admin needs to read but he or she shouldn't have to decide whether the consensus if for keep for some and delete for others. This is a very difficult way for this to have been presented as the projects are only related by broad subject matter.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think that there is a lack of policy concerning portals, we use personal feelings as arguments, which is unusual on this project. I add that if I have not split this discussion, it's because I think that they all have the same problem: 1. their scope (as presented on Wikipedia I mean) is too limited, 2. their subject not diversified enough and 3. there is a lack of quality content. I don't say that a portal must satisfy all these criteria, I say that at least one of them (or maybe another one) should be satisfied (for example, Portal:Powderfinger satisfies 3., Portal:Edgar Allan Poe too). Well, I would be glad if they were inclusion criteria for a portal (like the 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC). Maybe we can discuss about this somewhere. Cenarium (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If the Powder finger portal is acceptable, then the Motorhead must be, it has very similar content, the differences are cosmetic (the topics section is prettier on the Powderfinger Portal than on the Motorhead portal) in fact the Motorhead Portal has more topics.--Alf ^melmac 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, compare Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motörhead#Scope and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Powderfinger#Project_scope. Though it's true that the Motorhead portal is in better shape than the other nominates and would be the only one deserving a separate discussion I think. Cenarium (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Motorhead scope covers 87 articles, Powderfinger 72, powderfinger have a category for side projects, Motorhead hasn't, though it could, but it would contain only about five (although more could inlcuded depending on how strictly this was applied) times to date (whereas Lemmy is pretty keen on side-projects, the band per se hasn't been) I would view that as false accounting myself (it doesn't change the amount or quality of coverage, just where the articles are boxed for counting/sorting) but I wouldn't delete the category if someone else created it. The powderfinger article numbers are autogenerated as the portal uses tags on the relevant page, the Motorhead project could do similar but again the difference would be cosmetic.--Alf ^melmac 07:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• When whoever closes this deletes them, please make sure you use Special:Prefixindex to find and delete subpages of the portal. I've cleaned up three of them in recent MFDs where only the main page was deleted. --B (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I can delete the subpages of any deleted portals, and will when the discussion is closed. However, I do think that there is sufficient cause to close this discussion and relist all the portals most of the portals (but not The Vines, which seems speedyable) separately, and probably would have already done it myself if I had any idea how to do that. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From what I can see, portals are used to present a broad topic (like portal:music) or, if not broad enough, a featured topic (i.e. with "many" at least good articles, like portal:Edgar Allan Poe). Based on this, I think that only Portal:Britney Spears, Portal:Madonna (entertainer) and Portal:Motorhead should be individually discussed. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the result of any other individual Mfd be keep. But concerning the trio, I think that consensus has not been reached in this Mfd. Cenarium (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all for lack of maintenance. Portals are not indefinitely works in progress. - Chardish (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Motörhead is not a work in progress and is maintained.--Alf ^melmac 15:59, 5 March 2008 (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.