Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Evangelical Christianity

 __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. Closing early as I see consensus to keep before and after each relist. Participants should not be relisting unless there's a very good reason. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 17:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Evangelical Christianity

 * — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 23:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination based on "Many of these portals that are being nominated look way better then Portal:Evangelical Christianity. This christian portal is so ugly, I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion. A portal shouldn't look like a chopped up list. Catfurball (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)"  Legacypac 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Looks more like an outline than a portal. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Catfurball this one is objectively ugly. It is also outside the scope of WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral at this time. Unless a technical argument can be made for deletion, I won't try to assess because I will abstain as considering evangelical Christianity to be the wrong road to the right destination.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The perceived beauty of a portal is not a reason to keep or delete. If there is not a technical reason, I can't see any reason to delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about the seemingly random and incomplete list of topics included? There are plenty of Christian singers so why select the few that are there, especially since they are not particularly identified as Evangelical (never heard an artist classed as an Evangelical Christian artist, only as a Christian artist). Same issue with the schools and humanitarian sections. Even the list of denominations is seriously too short. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-exhaustivity criticism on list of topics applies to all portals. --ServB1 (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per the rationale of above. See also: WP:IMPERFECT. Concerns such as those above can be addressed by WP:COPYEDITING. North America1000 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Delete This portal doesn't even look like a portal, but a list that looks like a blue skunk. And not many pictures. And plus the person who created this portal is an Evangelical christian, which is breaking Wikipedia rules.Catfurball (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that Evangelical Christians were barred from creating pages on Wikipedia. Can you point me to the relevant RfC or policy?-- Auric   talk  17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * *Keep. Project connected with the portal that exists in different languages (German since 2004, Russian since 2006, French since 2014, Spanish since 2017, Portuguese since 2017, English since 2017). Thank you very much. --ServB1 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable argument for an article to exist - not this ugly portal. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Several categories and articles (Category Evangelicalism which is a synonym for evangelical Christianity) are linked to the portal.--ServB1 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is this topic is not a defined branch of Christianity or a denomination but more a loosely defined grouping of denominations. The portal assigns bands and singers and other random topics to the portal. It's editorial without the normal oversight checks and balances of a highly trafficed and edited article. Bad choice for a portal topic badly executed. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Since when did beauty become a deletion criterion ? Maybe I should MFD this page (on 1 April), it looks ugly and dated.... << FR (mobileUndo) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: FR30799386 has been blocked for sockpuppetry.  Edgeweyes (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. "This christian portal is so ugly" is not a valid deletion criteria.  "Objectively ugly" is an oxymoron.  "The person who created this portal is an Evangelical christian, which is breaking Wikipedia rules" is not a valid deletion criteria. (WTF?) The concerns about the content linked in the portal are best addressed through the normal editorial process, not through deletion. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an outline, not a portal. Many of the links on the outline aren't about Evangelical Christianity, but about Christianity in general (Christmas, pastor, etc.). I don't know if the proper level is Portal:Religion or Portal:Christianity but Portal:Evangelical Christianity definitely isn't it. Even aside from the outline format or the color scheme or the article selection, there aren't enough high-quality articles about Evangelical Christianity to justify a portal in the first place. Leviv&thinsp;ich 22:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, here is another example: What defines a topics scope? On one hand, we can tell the story of Evangelicalism by contrasting it with other Christianity topics, narrowing the scope completely to articles which define Evangelicalism. That is a good way to add to the story of Christianity, but on the other hand refuses Evangelicalism the scope to be a story unto itself, perhaps even to the point of deserving a portal or not. The article, Evangelical Christianity is heavily blue-linked most of the way down the page, many topics being very specific to Evangelicalism, but half are general. There is no way to link to the God article,, holy communion or born again in a specifically evangelical way, yet these are core topics about what Evangelical Christianity means. What is the difference between a portal and an article on this specific point, when articles do not declare themselves part of a portals subject range, but are definitely part of the subject range?  ~^\\\.rT G '{~ 14:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the introduction text, remove the rest, move to draft and start over. In its current state it looks like a navbox rather than a portal. Besides, as noted before, it should stay focused on Evangelical Christianity, not on Christianity in general, because Christianity has its own portal. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * By Wikipedia rules people of religion aren't supposed to edit or create articles related to their religion. User:ServB1 being an Evangelical he is breaking this Wikipedia rule by editing articles, but by also creating this ugly portal. He doesn't know how to correctly create portals, since he's not part of Wikipedia Project portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfurball (talk • contribs) 15:04, March 25, 2019 (UTC)


 * What rules? And, you don't need to be a member of a wikiproject to edit pages in the scope of the wikiproject. DexDor(talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * False. If I edited a page about my religion/beliefs I would certainly not be breaking any policy (COI??). Please educate yourself further on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before making such statements. CoolSkittle  (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * About the portal: Delete for its narrow scope and ugliness. CoolSkittle  (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Portals are supposed to provide a targeted overview of a topic, as you'll see in places like Portal:Politics or Portal:Spain.  This, however, basically takes a bunch of related articles and divides them up by topic.  This isn't even close to anything like Portal:Eastern Christianity or Portal:Christianity; it's just a bunch of article links without any actually useful organization.  Nothing wrong with the topic having a portal, but it needs to be a portal, not this.  Also, Catfurball, as noted above there's no such provision.  Imagine if we forbade atheists from editing articles that don't address religion!  Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Draft or WikiProject sub-page. The initial rationales for deletion given above are invalid, but I agree with the follow-up points about unhelpful and woefully incomplete selection of content. This has been in Portal space for two years and nobody has made the effort to bring it up to a decent standard yet. Perhaps this could also be renamed as Evangelical Christian subculture; that seems to dominate the content. It's not a good start for an Evangelical Christianity portal. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * AIUI, for technical reasons portals do not work in any other namespace so moving is not possible. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf and Fayenatic, I thought the same thing, but we were wrong. See the history of Draft:Gibberish II.  I created it at Portal:Gibberish, moved it to Portal:Gibberish II, and moved that to Draft:Gibberish II.  Moving it like this was no harder than moving an article.  Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just note if a portal has subpages (like this one does) the move should be done by someone with pagemover permissions so the subpages can all be moved at the same time; otherwise the one-by-one subpage moves are tedious and prone to error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This certainly needs improvement but deletion is not the way to achieve that (MfD is not cleanup). The topic is certainly broad enough to support a portal and we seem to have enough content available to do it justice. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My vote is basically WP:TNT; I don't disagree with having such a portal on principle, but I don't see the current version as being fixable with anything short of 100% new content. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur - this could be a good portal topic (as portals go) but building off this mess is harder than starting over. Anyway it takes 12 seconds to make a new portal. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 23:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This portal doesn't even look like [another] portal is a strong argument to keep, at least during the present cleaning process. Pldx1 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * would a redirect to Portal:Christianity or Evangelical Christian until someone is willing to build somethingbthat does not look so bad make everyone happy? Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems that this portal is maintained. Everything else is editorial decision. Moreover it takes 12 seconds to make a new portal only applies to the fake TTH-portals.
 * 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.