Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Coffee

 __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. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Coffee


Declined G7 CSD. this portal, and all its subpages, have sat moribund for about a year. I just made them "useable", and i dont want them all G7'd as duplicates of Portal:Drink, cause they aren't. However, if consensus is that this portal shouldnt exist anyway, fine. I cant even list the subpages here any more, as the CSD's have blanked their categorization somehow. someone put a lot of work in creating this portal initially, it was just not properly fleshed out. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just learned that the portal was part of a now defunct wikiproject, and was created without discussion by a SPA. if it really shouldnt exist, so be it, but it seems like a reasonable portal subject. I had assumed the portal was created in good faith, and now feel badly about wasting an hour of my life fixing it up. any chance it can be preserved as a potential portal might be nice, as we can have portals that are subsets of other portals. I want to be clear that the editor CSD'ing it is doing so in entirely good faith, with good reasons, (yep, there they are, below me:).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The portal was created by a SPA, without discussion, as part of a project to recreate the former Coffee and Tea Wikiproject which had died and was folded down into the Beverages Task Force of the Food and Drink WikiProject. The Drinks portal, which was created specifically to deal with that merger, is associated with The Beverages Task Force. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's rather strange that you've asked me on my talk page (see User talk:Northamerica1000) to stop improving the portal while you have simultaneously !voted here to have it removed from the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I responded there with my rationale. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete, create out of process by an SPA should be enough to get it speedied. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand – It's perfectly reasonable to have a Wikipedia portal specifically for one of the world's most popular beverages. Some people may be interested only in Coffee topics and not interested in everything else covered at Portal:Drink. Also, the portal is being used in some articles, per Pages that link to "Portal:Coffee". If it's retained, I can significantly add to it, as I have extensive experience in portal construction and expansion. No offense, but perhaps editors here are being a little hasty or overly eager to instantly delete without considering the merits of the portal and its potential for expansion?


 * How does deleting this portal actually help the encyclopedia, and to encourage the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and the provision of full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge, per the Wikimedia Foundation's goals? Deletion seems to only accomplish the opposite in this case; the opposite of what Wikimedia projects are all about.


 * I've declined the speedy deletion tags on each portal subpage, so people can actually view the content that is already in place. The MFD tag atop the portal suffices. I'd strongly prefer that while this discussion is in place, only the MFD deletion discussion tag atop the portal remains in place, rather than having every subpage within it blanked; otherwise, how are people to actually assess the content? Northamerica1000(talk) 09:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – Created out of process, but in good faith: likewise its recent updating. A useful topic. Rather than waste the work, let's see how many pageviews it gets. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most portals on Wikipedia are barely viewed, even the featured portals on major topics. The idea of using portals seems to have failed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, many portals receive significant page hits. For example, check out the article traffic statistics for Portal:Society here. That portal has received over 30,000 page views in April 2013. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The eight portals linked at the top of the Main Page, including Portal:Society as well as Portal:Arts, Portal:Biography, Portal:Geography, Portal:History, Portal:Mathematics, Portal:Science, and Portal:Technology, do get significant traffic. So does Portal:Contents/Portals, which is also linked from there. But few other portals can compare to those in terms of traffic, no matter how well-frequented their corresponding articles are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment while i bemoan the lack of attention to portals by readers (maybe the tiny boxes are part of the explanation?), i do note that this portal had from 1 to 10 hits per day, despite being linked from essentially NO articles. I dont know what that means of course.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep portals are entry points, not newspapers, I don't see why you'd need rapid updates. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I had no idea that approval was needed to create a portal (WP:BOLD anyone?) I don't care if this was a single-purpose account. This is a reasonable portal to have and there is no reason to delete it. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've begun work to expand the portal; hopefully it doesn't disappear. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems like a reasonable topic to have a portal on, with the relevant content to support it. Could use more improvement but nothing inherently wrong with it. --LauraHale (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep What is the rationale for this deletion proposal? Who is the nominator? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I nominated for deletion, as Jerem43 had Prodded it for speedy deletion, and i thought it was not noncontroversial, but wanted to respect that editors concerns about it, esp. after hearing its origin. I take full responsibility for nominating it, the rationale being: if its not being worked on, and has no editors associated with it, and was not approved by its parent wikiproject, it would just be taking up space. Since it now has people who want to work on it, a lot of my rationale has been answered.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• C • Sign AAPT) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep looks worthy of retaining. AutomaticStrikeout (T
 * Keep If Jerem43 wants to delete it, it probably belongs.
 * 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.