Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/2018-12-28 Biography portals

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 01:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
These portals were created all in one day by the same user. They're all on individual biographies, failing WP:POG.  SITH   (talk)   19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all mass creation justifies mass deletion. A year end "| race against time" Scope problems with any single person portal as established in the many similar individual MfDs recently. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep all. The only rationale for deletion is behavioral issues on the part of the creator. Some of these are on viable topics. Taking this and the adjacent bulk nomination by the same nominator, no reader of MfD is going to have time to go through this many portals in detail. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No the rational is they fail portal guidelines and are all biographies that are all created by the same person in quick succession. That is a very good case for a WP:BUNDLE. Dealing with portals that were mass created in seconds per portal warrente a bundle. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep without prejudice to nominating smaller, more thought out groups. As Espresso Addict has noted, there are plenty of major biographical topics included in this nomination. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 12:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The majority of these are well known, notable people with plenty of content available to fill out their portals. If there is a problem with a portal, fix it, don't just delete out of hand.-- Auric   talk  13:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fix it how? This is all code the average or even skilled editor can't work with. We also can't fix really low readership (because portals don't serve readers). You can't argue with the readers who made Wikipedia the go too site for knowledge but ignore portals like they have a disease. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all to undo the mass creation. No prejudice against thoughtful re-creation of portals for some of these people. For film directors that haven't been dead for long enough, portals that rely on images to look pretty usually don't work too well, and some even have Lua errors because there are no images at all. No sense in making extra work by discussing them individually, just WP:TNT and start over. —Kusma (t·c) 19:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. If the creator didn't put any thought into them, and they are not particularly helpful, then they should be gone.  If any of them have actual merit, I wouldn't object to those being kept.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all in order to undo the mass creation, making sure there aren't significant intermediate edits to any of the portals. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all A few would have enough scope for a portal, but it would take less time to just recreate them. WP:TNT etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all Mass creation justifies mass deletion. It doesn't matter that the majority of these are notable; of course they are; that's why we have articles on them. None of these people (and I believe, no person, except maybe certain extremely major historical figures like Moses, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed) are broad enough topics in scope to justify a portal under WP:POG. Leviv&thinsp;ich 23:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all to revert the mass creation by the portalspammer, without prejudice against thoughtful and selected re-creation of portals for some of these people where the portal is not based on a single navbox. (A portal based on a single navbox is simple a less function version of that navbox; the navbox does the job better, but displaying all the links simultaneously on every page in the set). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 7 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.