Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aretha Franklin

 __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. I am sympathetic to the delete !votes, but the arguments for keep in this case are stronger, even accounting for flippancy ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 01:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Aretha Franklin


Single person portal. Most of the page is a long reprint of part of her article, without sources. Checking the featured articles shows album pages that are thin and orange tagged. Everyday People is a featured article but you need to read to near the end to find out Franklin covered the song. Single artists are better served by a article where all the info is there, not chopped up on a portal page. An WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - a prolific recording artist with many related articles, there is plenty of scope for a portal. WaggersTALK  12:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – we already debunked the Single person portal rationale at Adele's MfD. This is a properly made, self-maintaining portal with plenty of material to sustain it.  Thin and tagged articles deserve attention, but that is no reason to delete other pages on the topic. Certes (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not debunk anything on a still open MfD by claiming a recording artist needs a portal because a US President justifies a portal. There is an ever growing list of deleted single person/group/company portal topics deleted because they are about a single person/group/company etc. Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Self-maintaining portals" are wishful thinking. Fram (talk) 15:05, 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  18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Where is the documentation for how self-maintaining portals maintain themselves? This is yet another single-person portal, and single-person portals are too narrow a focus.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – This portal meets WP:POG. This is in part per the availability of articles about the subject. See the category tree below for examples. North America1000 03:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Select [►] to view subcategories)


 * 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 09:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep single-person portals need a very broad scope to qualify, but I believe such a scope exists here. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Single performers such as this person so not meet the breadth-of-subject matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.