Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948

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 . I am incredibly sympathetic to the argument by SportingFlyer that, wowee, there are a ton of featured articles here! But I think given the broader community's discussions of portals in general over the nine months or so, the apetitite, even if slimly expressed here, for such a narrow focus, is minimal, and the delete participants make that case well enough. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Portal:Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Now this is a narrow overly specific topic for a portal. There are lots of links but wow this is obscure. The creator abandoned it in 2013 but the portals project reworked things in 2018. They were supposed to clear out some of the narrow focus portals after WP:ENDPORTALS but instead no topic is too obscure for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I think the odds I'm the only person who will be a keep vote on this may be somewhere around 99.94, but of all the portals I've reviewed recently, this is one of if not the best I've reviewed. I admittedly don't know much about Bradman's final tour, but the number of articles it links to are numerous in both quality and status (the one I clicked on randomly to see if it had been nominated for AfD was instead featured on the main page!), and if the role of a portal is to draw you into the topic this one does the best job I've seen. It clearly passes WP:POG and should be a model for anyone else wanting to create portals. SportingFlyer T·C 05:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Exactly. "no topic is too obscure for a portal". We have one Keep vote because that editor and TTH think that no topic is too obscure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Who gets to decide what's obscure? This is a topic with at least 42 featured topics - not stubs - (see [Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948]. It's one of the most important cricket tours in history. And yet we have two users, self admittedly North American on their user pages, claiming it's "obscure." On top of that it's a well-constructed portal. Part of the problem with this whole deletion process is we're racing to delete content without even any sort of reasonable guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The Portal project was "racing against time" to get to 10,000 portals, sometimes making 150 bio portals a day, so it is strange you find this slow painful page by page process deletion process to be too fast. If you don't support the current guidelines, make an RFC. I think the current guidelines are far to permissive but to find portals that fail the current guidelines I can just use the random portal links and within one to three clicks I've got another to nominate for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly the problem? If portal creation was done in bulk, and no one has bothered with the portal after they were created in bulk, why not delete in bulk? SITH's nominations have been excellent in this regard. Furthermore this portal isn't an obscure topic to its target audience - Bradman's final tour of England, Australia's undefeated streak, the largest crowds in Test cricket history. You would be much better off with a targeted approach, because a number of portals that have been nominated require nothing more than a little fixup. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - the topic isn't all that obscure and the portal is well done. I don't really use portals at all and that's the only think stopping me from suggesting a straight keep. If the purpose of portals has changed so much then I might see a delete here, but the number of FA in the topic area suggests to me it might have some value. Pings would be appreciated if anything important crops up - I won't watch this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Holy mother of christ, ONE year of ONE nation's national cricket team is practically the fucking definition of a narrow topic. What's next? Each month of that single year, because there's just so much content? Unbelievable. Absolutely absurd topic for a portal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 10 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.