Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:09, 2 March 2019 editLegacypac (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers158,031 edits →Discussion on Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Portals ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:38, 2 March 2019 edit undoThe Transhumanist (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers302,857 edits replyNext edit →
Line 45:		Line 45:
	*'''Oppose''' I don't understand "We do not need" them as a justification for deletion. Does it hurt the project that these portals exist? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' I don't understand "We do not need" them as a justification for deletion. Does it hurt the project that these portals exist? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	::In the absense of any approval or guideline for the mass creation of portals, "we don't need them" is as good a reason as any to seek deletion, but in this cases a number of very good reasons have been identified. ] (]) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)		::In the absense of any approval or guideline for the mass creation of portals, "we don't need them" is as good a reason as any to seek deletion, but in this cases a number of very good reasons have been identified. ] (]) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
			::: How or how many portals were created is irrelevant. You need to show how the pages do not meet current portal standards, and these do.
			::: Also, notice must be posted at the top of each page to be deleted, per Deletion policy. Something you are quite familiar with. <span class="nowrap">   — '']''   </span> 10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:38, 2 March 2019

Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods

23 recently created Portals for neighborhoods in Portland. We do not need portals on every neighborhood for every medium size city in even the USA. Portal:Portland, Oregon and Portal:Oregon as well as Portal:Portland Timbers, Portal:Portland Trail Blazers and Portal:University of Portland for good measure. I have have not tagged every portal listed as it would flood the creator's talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Portals

Comment: You didn't mention how these portals qualify for deletion per the deletion policy and guidelines. Your opinion that we don't need them is synonymous with WP:IDLI (3rd example). — The Transhumanist 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(ec) These are indiscriminately created with no thought put into what they should display. Creating these portals was irresponsible. We don't need portals that are so narrow a topic as to have individual houses as feature articles, or in one case a burned building as a feature photo. Since there is no guidelines that govern creation of automated portals, I don't need to cite any guideline for deletion - just that we don't need them. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete all - But consider the suggestion of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise that we need a mass-destruction authority, like Neely redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment - and they were all created as WP:ILIKEIT. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete all, no chance of becoming useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. A portal like Portal:Alameda, Portland, Oregon has 1 "selected article", 2 poor images (certainly at the size used in these portals), no subcategories, and 4 subtopics. Luckily hardly anyone ever see this, as it is a totally useless portal. Portal:Arbor Lodge, Portland, Oregon has one rather boring picture, and two selected articles about light rail stations. No subcategories, 4 subtopics. The others at first glance mostly share these characteristics. Fram (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon two similar photos of street signs, 0 subcategories and 5 subtopics: a rail stn, a park, sculptures in the same park, a house and a restaurant. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete all and create a Transhumanist speedy deletion category This needs to end. ―Susmuffin 09:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete all, not an improvement over not having these portals. A section about neighbourhoods and their features in Portal:Portland, Oregon would likely work much better. —Kusma (t·c) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Neelix — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete all as per above (and below, with all the nominated portals). Though, it would be fine to create some criteria for portal eligibility. –eggofreason 18:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand "We do not need" them as a justification for deletion. Does it hurt the project that these portals exist? Liz 04:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In the absense of any approval or guideline for the mass creation of portals, "we don't need them" is as good a reason as any to seek deletion, but in this cases a number of very good reasons have been identified. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How or how many portals were created is irrelevant. You need to show how the pages do not meet current portal standards, and these do.

Also, notice must be posted at the top of each page to be deleted, per Deletion policy. Something you are quite familiar with. — The Transhumanist 10:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)