Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Black Lives Matter

 __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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Black Lives Matter


Plenty or scope but this portal covers a controversial topic best handled in articles with references. A very recent automatic creation. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There is definitely room for improvement, but I am not convinced that it needs to be deleted and meets WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr    ✉    06:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – Passes WP:POG. References can be viewed by selecting/clicking on the "Read more" links in the portal, which leads to the articles. North America1000 08:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We put refs on the page that needs them - the reader should not need to go hunting for them. This format can not provide the balance needed. Balance is found in a proper article not some snippets. This is similar to the some other controversial portal topics we deleted already. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – In the 2014 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 7 § References in portals, users were against references being existent in portals. As such, a lack of sources in this present portal does not qualify deletion. The notion of "we put refs on the page that needs them" in regards to portals is a personal opinion, and is not backed by any consensus. North America1000 08:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A local discussion that violates sitewide policy, arrived at to solve a display problem. Oh refs are giving us problems, let's toss all the refs. Not binding on the site. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep doesn't appear to have been created automatically and easily passes WP:POG. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The portal's code contains the text "This portal was created using subst:Basic portal start page". Subst-ing a complex template is the definition of an automated portal creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked the creator's contribution log and this portal was not created in bulk. I would imagine most portals start out with the basic portal start page template. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is precisely the problem: with this template, there is no intelligent curation, leading to all the issues that we see in a majority of portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The user has made numerous portals this way, including some after the RFC mandated pause. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * By this logic, we should remove articles created using the Articles for Creation wizard. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the basic structure of the Article Creation Wizard produced numerous errors and lead to an RFC that resulted in a pause in it's use while the issue was sorted out, absolutely. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Plenty of content available to qualify this portal. See the category tree below:
 * (Select [►] to view subcategories)
 * – North America1000 20:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A disruptive comment that does not address the reason for the nomination. I specified there was lots of content in the scope, the issue is the controversial nature of the topic and lacknof references in the portal format. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A disruptive comment that does not address the reason for the nomination. I specified there was lots of content in the scope, the issue is the controversial nature of the topic and lacknof references in the portal format. Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This portal does appear to have been created using automated tools . Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Portals are best used to handle non-controversial topics. Apparently the portal advocates simply think that the higher the profile of the article, the greater the need for a portal.  I disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This portal only make sense if carefully maintained by a flesh and blood person. Volunteer anyone ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * cross reference Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamophobia Legacypac (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Regional and narrow Topic. Not meets WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:31, 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.