Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ben E. King

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Portal:Ben E. King


Yet another pointless micro-portal, with far too narrow a scope for a portal: only 35 articles. A set with this low a number of pages is better served by a head article and a navbox. We already have both: Ben E. King and Template:Ben E. King. Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * PS This is simply a fancier navbox, located on a lonesome standalone page rather than handily appended to an article. I see nothing in WP:Portal guidelines to support this usage of a portal as a fancier navbox. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ben E. King. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirect is not warranted. The portal can be easily orphaned and it's not a likely search term. Although not a categorically forbidden cross-namespace redirect, it's highly confusing. When people click on a portal link they expect to find a portal, not an article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - If there is to be a minimum number of articles within a portal's scope for it to be appropriate (or some other broadness of topic clause), then a guideline should be established to that effect. Handling them individually without established guidance is undesirable and inefficient. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a new portal which currently only utilises the links from the corresponding navbox, but there are further articles that would be appropriate for inclusion in the portal (such as places, people or events related to the subject); besides which, the current number of selected articles is still a decent basis on which to build a portal. As has been discussed at length elsewhere (a discussion that would be pointless to repeat here), a portal is more than a summary of the core subject and a collection of related links; "a head article and a navbox" do not serve the same purpose or provide the same user experience as a portal. Waggers<small  style="color:#080">TALK  11:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Godsy et el. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – Comes across as a useful navigational aid for those interested in the subject. North America1000 03:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – complements the root article by providing the rest of the subject on a single page via a convenient interface (slideshows).  &mdash; The Transhumanist   03:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The empty associated category speaks for itself as to a lack of maintenance that should have been done in advance. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maintenance on the portal is automated. The excerpts auto-update, and the selection of articles automatically grow as the selection at the sourcepage expands.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see that there is a group of portal-inclusionists who think that we should permit this proliferation of portals pending resolution of creation and deletion criteria. Given that about half of editors would like to do away with portals, it makes more sense to prevent any continued proliferation of mini-portals until the issues are resolved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree, except: if an agreement on what constitutes a "mini-portal" (i.e. inappropriate portal) was reached, then we would basically already have creation and deletion rules. Bar a complete moratorium on new portals, which would be a drastic measure, the discussion needs to happen first. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 07:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – the guideline currently in place sets a low end threshold of articles needed of "about 20 articles". See Portal guidelines.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   19:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on portal creation criteria

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.