Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Narrow-scoped portals should be fine if the people maintaining them are willing to continue to maintain. I know of various portals that are narrow-scoped, however, have enough quality content (keep in mind that the main point of portals is to display our best work in a particular area) to be considered a valid portal topic. Many portals take weeks to set up and find that they end up deleted before they can finally lose the "under construction" banner. If you find a portal that appears to have a narrower scope than usual, check up on dates or ask the creator if they still have plans to improve it. Spebi 04:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:English football

Portal has too narrow a scope to be efficiently maintained. Portal:Association football should be enough. – PeeJay 19:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – PeeJay 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree.  Sunderland06  19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, If Portal:English football is being considered for deletion, then perhaps Portal:A-League should be considered too? King of the NorthEast 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - We should see how this nomination goes before nominating any others. – PeeJay 20:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. And I also think Portal:A-League should go too.Keep - Changing per below comments by Shuttle. D.M.N. (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, subject matter is broad enough as long as it covers all English football in the English football league system. Even though it has only been in existence for under a month, the last edit to it's subpages was yesterday so I would say that it's still under construction. I would recommend that if it is kept that it moves away from "Selected X of the month" and onto a random generator to stop it from becoming stale (as done by myself as Portal:Association football). One point I'm unsure of though is it's.. reason for being - it doesn't seem to be actively supported by the project or English football taskforce and is only navigable from WP:FOOTY or the Association football portal. Creator also made WikiProject Scottish football and Portal:Scottish football (the latter of which they requested to be db-author'd) and may have just thought it'd be a good idea to have one for England too. I do wonder whether it will continue to be updated and new content added in the long run. Nanonic (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I db-author'd the Scottish portal for the lack of scope, but I genuinely believe this has enough scope for a Portal. I mean, as King pointed out, there is an A-League portal with a lot less scope than this. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment The portal could be moved to Football in the UK or something similar. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - If the only argument is too small a scope then I say keep. The scope seems large enough to me. The English football league system is huge. The number of players, the history, the number of teams. It's a broad enough topic to warrant a portal imho. - Shudde talk 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shudde. Hut 8.5 11:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as home of one of the largest leagues in the world, there is plenty of scope here. Regan123 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fairly strong keep small scope argument isn't valid imo, there are reams of daily papers, news programmes, sports shows, decent websites etc which get more than enough mileage out of just the Premier League, let alone the entire football league system, even if we discount the rumour mill. Kit Berg (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The English football league system is enormous and clearly has a large enough scope to merit its own Portal. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Scope is plenty broad, still actively under construction. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - adds nothing to the encyclopaedia. Can't see what the need for this page actually is. - fchd (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You going to say that for the other portals too? D.M.N. (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • He's right about this portal though. What is its purpose? It just seems like overkill to me. – PeeJay 13:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't know about any other portals - have never used any of them (nor never even noticed their existence!). Anyway, they're not up for discussion here. - fchd (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know much about this topic and reviewing the portal in detail I found it quite helpful for exactly the purpose of a portal, it give a good door to the topic - I'm sure I personally won't use it very often, but it adds plenty to the encyclopedia.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - there's huge scope for a portal on this subject, it's absolutely massive! I'm only surprised this portal is as young as it is. Waggers (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shudde. Does no harm. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 01:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based on the fact there's loads of English football club articles, let alone English players and related topics, I disagree with the scope being too narrow. -Halo (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Covers large scope —dima/talk/ 04:01, 21 January 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.