Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Featured articles


 * 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 Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Featured_articles
There was a naming dispute almost a year ago: it was proposed to rename Featured articles into the portal with the same name. While this proposal was rejected, the proposer still created the portal, which was intended to serve as a supplement to the Portal:Featured content. Unfortunately Portal:Featured articles is not maintained properly (there is even no talk page), and largely duplicates Featured articles. Moreover Portal:Featured content does not need supplements in my opinion. So, I think, the portal should be deleted. Ruslik_ Zero 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Portal created against consensus, redundant, not maintained. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Klein zach  04:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, more or less redundant to WP:FA. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, several of the statements above about the background of this page are incorrect. That said, I'd agree there is no need to keep it. What actually happened was a dispute amongst various people about the location and content of the different types of 'featured content' pages. Most of these pages (e.g. WP:FA) are currently almost entirely focused on helping Wikipedia editors with the process of designating things as 'featured'. Some argued that they should instead be made more like 'portals' where there is a mix of process information and a showcase of the resultant content for readers of the encyclopedia. I created the P:FA page, at the suggestion of people on both sides of that dispute, solely as an example of what such a 'mixed purpose' page might look like. I noted at the time that a major problem with such a parallel structure (both project and portal namespace pages for each type of featured content) would be finding people to maintain them. As expected, that hasn't happened. Ergo, the page might as well go. Though no doubt this 'project vs portal' conflict will come up again... as it has repeatedly in the past. --CBD 15:00, 16 June 2009 (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.