Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas

 __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: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cotingas


Unnecessary recently created portal on a family of South American birds. If you know what this family of birds is called, you don't need the portal to introduce you to the topic. If you don't know what the birds are called, you are unlikely to find this portal. Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Something in the nominator's statement has been garbled, but it doesn't matter. We don't need hundreds of random portals.  Whether we need a topic-ban on the creation of the portals is not the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. Yes this one jumped out as "what the heck is that?" on the recent creations list. 243 Portal creations in just the last month is worrysome. None of this generates any new content or much value to the readers, but a lot of new pages to maintain for a limited number of volunteers. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep – The nominator has missed the main purpose of portals: to supplement articles. A user will find the link to this portal on the article Cotinga, for the user to click on if he or she wants to conveniently browse more coverage of the subject, and for this purpose the portal provides slideshows that the user can easily click through at their leisure. Each article serves as an introduction to its subject, while portals are intended to provide a bird's eye view of a subject (no pun intended) and help navigate the whole subject. Wikipedia's coverage of a subject often extends far beyond a subject's root article, with many articles on the subject. (Continued...)
 * (...continued). There are 65 articles on different cotingas species on Wikipedia currently, and you can browse through a randomized sampling of them each time you visit this portal. With pictures. The portal guidelines state that the scope needed for a portal is 20 articles. This one goes far beyond that, and will increase in coverage automatically as Wikipedia's coverage of cotingas expands. (Continued...)
 * (...continued). The nominator is critiquing this portal as if it were an article, but it is not. Portals are one of Wikipedia's navigation subsystems (outlines, indexes, categories, navigation templates, and portals), all of which are designed to help see what is on this humongous encyclopedia.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In your mind maybe. Where is the consensus or discussion with a wikiproject (or anyone else) that lead to the creation of this portal? Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC). Also don't do Canvassing Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? User:Catfurball is the person who requested the portal be created, who would have done so himself if he knew how. He has the right to know about this discussion.
 * By the way, there is no approval process for portals, just as there is no approval process for articles. That would just be MfD and AfD turned upside down, enabling editors to delete pages before they are even created. It would go against the core principle of the wiki concept, which is open editing. Without that, Wikipedia would not have 5.8 million articles. Wikipedia does not need another level of deletion bureaucracy.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   12:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Many articles go through AfC, all articles go through NPP (New Page Patrol) unless the creator is highly trusted (autopatrolled) and all articles go on lists of new articles that are actively patrolled. We have Admins that create protect problem pages. A system of AfD, CSDs and PROD to delete inappropriate content. WP:ACREQ to stop random new users and IPs from creating pages. To say there is no approval process for articles is highly misleading because there is both extensive controls on creation and a review process that happens before the pages get indexed, as well as guidelines that must be followed or new pages are quickly deleted. Now we are trying to apply some review process to the 3500 portals you created without consulting anyone, but you post nonsense about there being no approval process for articles. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a way with twisting words. There is no requirement to get permission (approval) before creating a page, including articles.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   18:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Utterly useless. Being offered "randomized" snippets about something to browse through is simply not of any educational value, and other than that, the page offers nothing that the main article doesn't do better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But that's what most portals do (the rest show just one article at a time). It's their main design feature. That's not a valid argument for deletion of an individual portal, but an argument against portals in general. The community decided on keeping portals at WP:ENDPORTALS. This is not the proper venue for another debate on the deletion of all portals.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   12:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Real, useable portals do something much more, and it's only because those portals exist that the community decided to keep the feature as a whole. If the large majority of portals don't do more than that, then that's indeed an argument for deleting the large majority of portals, but it also happens to be a valid argument for deleting this one. Now stop badgering participants in these MfDs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that in any way badgering? The portal follows the portal guidelines, and your complaint above is about features covered in those guidelines. Ergo, not a valid argument for deletion.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   12:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep Portal:Cotingas it is worth keeping because there are many birds in this family a total of 66. And there are big articles that do exist for the Cotingas, there is no need to delete this article.Catfurball (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet you helpfully pointed out here the page broke itself and is inadequate. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, not convincing in its present form. A portal for this topic might work, but it would need actual human work, not something as useless as the two selected images (of which only one has a caption) here. A focus on quality rather than quantity of portals might have been a good idea. —Kusma (t·c) 22:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Automation fails for this topic. The focus should be on improving the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates Portals/Guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per rationale I gave at portal:tanagers. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep — Never edited a portal before, but fixed the error on the page in under 10min. Now looks great. The fix was trivial, and I think is a good indicator that automatically maintained portals work. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an article (Cotinga) so what does an automated portal add apart from another page to be maintained? Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Portals are an alternative interface for exploring the subject. The maintenance needed seems pretty trivial to me compared to that needed for articles (it's just a few templates, not actual text that needs copyediting, updating, etc.), so it doesn't seem like a problem. Even if only a few people use them, it seems reasonable to keep them. Granted, I think pretty much any factual articles should be included in the encyclopedia, and the GNG ship sailed long ago, so it's quite possible that my opinion diverges from community consensus in this regard as well. I mean, my opinions are right, of course, but the community does have the right to be wrong. ;) —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 05:02, 12 March 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.