Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Powderfinger

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The result of the debate was speedy keep, withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Powderfinger

The purpose of a portal is to help in the navigation in a particular topic but the subject is not broad enough. The main article, Powderfinger can (and does) achieve all the goals of this portal except maybe the Did You Know which, in my opinion and in this context, is could contain trivia (see lower for explanations on that). For information, another similar Mfd is ongoing here. Cenarium (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The reason I created this portal in the first place is because I knew there was enough quality content to keep it running. The hooks in the Did you know section, with the exception of a couple, have all appeared on the Main Page and are quality articles. The sole reason that the "broad topics only" rule is in place is because often narrow topics have less quality articles and the whole point of portals is to showcase our best work; the portal is showcasing Wikipedia's best work about Powderfinger (mind you, there is quite a bit) so I see absolutely nothing wrong with the portal that warrants its deletion. Spebi 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Even if they are 6 featured articles about Powderfinger (as acknowledged per Wikipedia:WikiProject Powderfinger), I think that the portal is unnecessary, if someone wants to access a particular article about PowderFinger, the main article and the box will certainly contain the wanted link (or the Go button). Concerning the DYK, I think that, the scope being (relatively) too limited and not enough diversified, it won't be possible to maintain it with new articles (which is the purpose of DYK per WP:DYK) and it may fall in trivia (though it's not the case now). Regards, Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  I don't really see how this portal's DYK section must conform to guidelines laid out in Wikipedia:Did you know, as that page is for the system on the main page. If it isn't updated regularly (regularly being 6 hours if you're following Wikipedia:Did you know), it's classed as trivia? Trivia differs greatly to hooks on quality articles that meet certain standards (that don't necessarily have to be met). Spebi 05:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a lot of work has gone into this Portal and with a Project to maintain it and 6 featured articles, I'm not sure that deletion is warranted. Sure it's borderline scope, but there is no bright line, except 1 main article and three sub topics that are non-stubs to avoid Speedy P2 - but to have 6 FAs cleans that by a pretty broad margin. I would have no use for this Portal but I can see how others might. BTW, I am unaware of any requirement that Portals be maintained with new articles - it doesn't strike me as the kind of Portal that would need constant updating necessarily.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Just because it's not a featured portal doesn't mean it should be deleted. Most portals are of comparable quality as this one. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As above. Astral (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - What the hell? Obviously not in need of deletion. Lara❤Love 06:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not just to add to the large pile above… Though I do agree that the other portals currently on MfD (Britney Spears, Madonna, et al.) should be deleted because of their lack of substance, such an active WikiProject that turns out so much good and featured content has plenty to showcase. Kakofonous (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's seriously almost at featured state and does not (in my case) need deleting. — E ^talk 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Spebi 09:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per ahove, there is plenty of quality content that can be shown off on this Portal. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
• Keep per above. Breadth is relative and subjective. IMO this is broad enough. —Moondyne 12:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have not included Powderfinger in my previous Mfd in part because of the quality content that it presents, but I think that it deserved a discussion since it is similar in nature to these portals. I tend to agree with all of you, this portal is in good standing and deserves not to be deleted, hence I withdraw.Cenarium (talk) 13:20, 17 February 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.