Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Andy Gibb
- 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 discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux Talk 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Single person portal, an X3 mass created garbage portal by TTH. Only 19 articles (songs and albums). The singer is dead so the breadth of coverage will not expand. Fails WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep My view is that 19 articles is sufficient scope for a portal to exist; also breadth of coverage does not necessarily equate to breadth of future content - there are lots of dead people we need to expand our content on. WaggersTALK 12:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:POG call for at least 20 articles and they need to be of sufficent quality to support a portal. What might exist in the future is not part of the consideration. Legacypac (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed the portal and believe it passes WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. No associated category or WikiProject. Category is a required element per WP:POG. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - This is not a copy-and-paste !vote, although some of mine have been. Single-person portals do not contribute to the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – WP:X3 is a present proposal discussion; it is not a guideline or policy. As such, it is not a valid qualifier for deletion. North America1000 09:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The claimed 19 articles in scope is way too small for a portal. I just counted using AWB, and I find only 16 non-stub articles (17 if you include the Bee Gees). Even the "guideline" drawn up by portal fans at WP:POG (without broad consensus) says a minimum of 20 ... and I would like a much higher threshold.
- It is very unhelpful that the nominator @Legacypac cited X3 when that is still a proposal under discussion. I support adopting X3, but that hasn't happened yet, and it's wrong to proceed as if it has happened.
- The claims that it should be kept because there may be more coverage in the future are, frankly, either silly or disingenuous. TTH created these portals in between 60 and 120 seconds each (Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)), so it will be easy to recreate this if and when coverage expands to the point where it passes whatever size thresholds are in place by then.
- I also note that the "keep" votes continue to resemble an attrition strategy. There is a crew of editors who splat-paste dubious keeps on scores of MFDs of driveby-created portsalspam, even when the portals don't even meet the minimal criteria set by portal fans. These same editors are doing nothing to assist in cleaning up the portalspam ... and while I cannot mindread and would like to believe that they are acting in good faith, it's hard to avoid noticing that their actions are wholly compatible with an attrition strategy of making it too time-consuming for other editors to clean up the flood of dross with the portals project sprayed out at high speed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per BHG. The topic is not broad enough for a portal, and Andy was never a Bee Gee :-). Miniapolis 22:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Scope here is way too small for a portal: delete. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2019 (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.