Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Frogs and toads

 __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) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Frogs and toads


We don't need Frogs and Toads or Salamanders as portals if we also have Portal:Amphibians. I leave it up to others whether we need an amphibian portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all overlaps a long standing existing portal. There could be more to bundle here. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Both portals cover large groups with plenty of their own content. There's no reason why readers interested in frogs or salamanders specifically should be forced to dig through the content of a portal with a broader scope than what they're interested in. Abyssal (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to me that the important points are that the portal covers a broad enough subject and that it has editors actively maintaining it. Extremely narrow portals will have little interest to readers and portals that aren't maintained won't have sufficient quality. The latter means portals should be attached to a project or task force to ensure that there are editors with an interest in maintaining it. Then it should be up to the project to determine how the subject is split or not. I have no strong opinion on how the split is done, but the proposed deletion should not be part of a series of mass deletion requests for portals. I oppose the deletion because it is part of the latter. This should be a subject for the project to discuss and decide and up to them to request deltetion if that is the decision.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Was this ever discussed with a WikiProject? At create speads of 40 a minute in violation of WP:MEATBOT, I doubt it. Legacypac (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These portals were created in 2015. How does WP:MEATBOT apply?    Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The portals were created around the same time because I was building them simultaneously from a shared repository of quality content like featured articles and DYKs. Abyssal (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that you created them both then. I was asking why the fact that someone was creating new portals automatically several years later, possibly in violation of WP:MEATBOT, is relevant for these two portals. The question was really rhetorical as it's obvious that there is no connection. In the discussion on deletion of some mammalian portals, suggested this was simply an attempted end-run around the Village Pump RfC which was closed as . It's hard to disagree.   Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Both per the rationale of above, and also because both portals meet WP:POG. North America1000 05:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I am strongly tempted to !vote a procedural "keep" on the basis that the nominator has once again failed to provide any policy arguments for deletion beyond "we don't need it" which is essentially "I don't like it". These attempts to have as many Portals as possible deleted, regardless of whether or not they are long-standing ones (like these two) that pre-date the recent spate of bot-like automated portals and without any effort to argue a case for deletion is, quite frankly, out of order. There is no rational argument for automatically nominating for deletion all portals on subjects that are a subset of the subject of another portal. The fallacy of that is well illustrated at the Mammalian portals MfD. Having said that, I doubt that there are enough high quality articles and images to sufficiently populate a separate Salamander portal. However, there are at least 10 Frog and Toad FA and GA articles and several more B class plus several FPs, making that one potentially viable. The problem is that both portals are very incomplete with only one article in each section. Ditto the "Selected pictures" have only one image. Is "needs improvement" grounds for deletion of a portal? It isn't for articles. Voceditenore (talk) 13:09, 24 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.