Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amusement parks

 __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:  keep. Seems like reasoned argument has been offered that this meets WP:POG. I see that some people said they consider the non-automated version better and someone has restored the non-automated version; further discussion if needed can occur on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Amusement parks

 * UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Built off Template:Amusement parks and adds nothing to the head article. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Heritage portal created by inactive user. As Legacypac says, adds nothing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment  - Old portal, 68 subpages, created 2007-09-01 21:50:33 by User:Seaserpent85. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Amusement parks. Pldx1 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and Revert to this pre-automated version – Meets WP:POG in my view, in part per the plethora of content available about the topic. See the categories below for examples. Lots of content available at Commons too, which can be used to expand the portal. The pre-automated version also provides some additional content outside of what's in the article, and can be expanded to cover even more. North America1000 01:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * – North America1000 01:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet the breadth of subject area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting: WikiProject was never notified, which is the right thing to do.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the scope sound reasonable to me and there's a functioning non-automated version to revert to.  Hut 8.5  21:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd missed this one. Former featured portal (reviewed 2008) before The Transhumanist et al. rebooted it. Contents then 12 selected articles, 13 parks, 10 pictures, 18 individual DYKs is small for a featured portal (it's one of the earlier ones) but exceeds the portal guidelines. Does not seem to be a particularly small topic and it's one where our coverage is generally good; see Category:Amusement parks. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The active version is the TTH-automated one, only providing a degraded version of the corresponding navbox. As of now, nobody has arsed herself to click on the undo button and relaunch the former version. This would have implied to take some responsibility for this portal... and perhaps have compulsed the click person to revisit a series of outdated 2007 snippets. This is the same pattern as ever: the Lords of the Castle are !voting keep, there will be so much peones down the hill to do the job instead of the keep !voters. It simply happens that peones are reluctant, and the readers as well. Without prejudice to a restart from scratch, by an active team, in order to build a decent portal. Pldx1 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have reverted it on behalf of the former featured portal team. However as amusement parks are not in the areas I edit, I don't intend to do any further work on it. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Former Featured portal. Lots of fine article which could populate. Too broad a subject matter to be satisfied with a mere list or template. BusterD (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Has been converted back to manual "pre-automated" version with plenty of scope for expanding breadth and depth of coverage from existing content. Former featured Portal. Are we now proposing that class of Portal is now fair game for MfD? - Cactus.man  &#9997;  16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * will open in April/2012. How to parse Former Featured Portal ? Should we parse it as "Former Featured Portal" or parse it as "Former Featured Portal" ? Pldx1 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if that is addressed to me, or any other User who has mentioned that this was a former featured Portal, but I'll comment as follows:
 * 1. You open with a quotation "will open in April/2012" - HUH ?? What is that about, what's the context, where does it come from and what is the relevance to this MfD?
 * 2. Former featured Portal is exactly that, it's a statement of fact - a Portal that was formerly featured. It needs no instructions to help anybody parse it, so parse it as you see fit. Either of your suggestions could be seen as correct. - Cactus.man   &#9997;  08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Amusement_parks shows that the restored manual version has 13 Selected amusement park, 12 Selected articles, and 12 selected pictures, and a bunch of DYKs.  I have not checked whether it was being actively maintained before automation, but that looks like decent shape to me. Do any of those who !vote to delete want to try offer me any reasons to !vote anything other than "keep"?   Having I missed any major issues? @Pldx1, @Robert McClenon, @UnitedStatesian? --01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 May 2019‎ (UTC)
 * strictly on breadth-of-subject-area considerations. There are only 400 of these in the US, maybe another 800 elsewhere in the world. Can something that there are only 1,200 of on earth today, and that there were none of before ~100 years ago, possibly be a broad enough topic?  The logic from the admin's closing statement in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé is operative here: "the existence of lots of articles about a narrow topic does not make it a broad topic, it makes it a comprehensively covered narrow topic."The portal has no "in the news" section, no "on this date" section, so how is it an enhanced main page? UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @UnitedStatesian, a scope of only 1200 articles is narrower than my preferences, but it is much wider than many of the topics we have assessed for narrowness. And the scope is not restricted to articles about individual amusement parks; there also articles on types of park, on features found in amusement parks etc.
 * It seems to me that this is anther example of how Wikipedia's systemic biases causes a narrow topic to be copiously documented. When the copious documentation creates a smaller set of only a few hundred articles, I will support deletion; but when the pile of copious documentation gets this big, and the topic is broader than one person/one company etc, I think it should stay unless and until there is a broad consensus to purge portals on this type of topic. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - My previous comment was over-optimistic. Be serious, Pldx1 ! Saying: and perhaps have compulsed the click person to revisit a series of outdated 2007 snippets. Indeed, Pldx1 !  So unable to learn from experiment !  As it was predictable, nobody has checked this pile of outdated 2007 snippets. And --quite predictably-- nobody will check the whole pile in any foreseeable future. You know, crowd sourcing requires a crowd. It seems that 25 views a day [wmflabs] doesn't make a crowd.  Indeed, TTH was absolutely right when taking the editorial decision to nuke the old past and gone thing. But now we have the following exchange:
 * --- "will open in April/2012"
 * --- HUH ?? What is that about, what's the context, where does it come from and what is the relevance to this MfD?
 * Perhaps, doing some homework will bring some answers ? And therefore, I stay with the TTH editorial decision: nuke this outdated thing. Pldx1 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as an abandoned portal, without prejudice to a future version in accordance with new guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America1000 00:28, 9 May 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.