Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lotus Connections


 * 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 debate was speedy delete as an advertisement and because of narrow scope.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Lotus Connections
Okay, my first time nominating a Portal for deletion, so if this is an inappropriate nomination, please don't bite too hard. The topic only has a stub article, and while that could be fleshed out, it seems that this is a pretty narrow topic for a portal. I am also concerned about conflict of interest given the portal creator's username (User:StephenfromIBM). I think this is being used more to host a website than to build an encyclopedia.

That said, the portal is very new, so maybe it should be given a chance to develop first? The criteria for portal deletion are not clear to me, so again, if this is an inappropriate nomination, I apologize. Jaysweet (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - As noted by the nominator, the entire thing is an advertisement website for Lotus Connections, complete with an "IBM Employee of the Week" photo-biog! -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (perhaps speedy under criterion P2 - underpopulated portal) - I think this is an instance of a misunderstanding of what a portal is: a means of showcasing content on Wikipedia, as opposed to an basic information page for a specific topic. Though the subject of this portal is too narrow, a more general portal for IBM might be viable. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I thought about doing a P2, but I am very unfamiliar with the criteria regarding portals. You'll note in my nomination that I was very timid about even MfDing it :)
 * Question about P2: I considered it, but my thinking was that since the portal is very new, one could argue that it is "under construction".  I imagine a lot of quality portals started out in a condition that would have failed P2 (of course, maybe that assumption is incorrect as well).  So, is P2 valid even if the portal is very new, if the odds of the portal ever developing enough content to satisfy the P2 criteria are very slim?  Or, is P2 so strict that even if a portal might one day meet the minimum size requirements, if it doesn't now then I can flag it with P2? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both interpretations are correct, though the possibility of ignoring the rules ought to be considered in cases of the second.
 * If the scope of a portal is too narrow, it is effectively doomed from the start. In the case of this portal, only one article (Lotus Connections) falls under its scope; all of the other article links contained in the portal are related to Lotus Connections through a higher-level connection to Lotus software or IBM. If the scope of a portal is adequately broad, but the articles it covers are underdeveloped, then I think some judgment should be exercised to evaluate whether developing the portal in the future would require substantially more effort than simply recreating it.
 * The portal under discussion is somewhat developed (see subpages), but the portal's scope is inherently too limited. Black Falcon (Talk) 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! With that in mind, I probably would have CSD'd this portal if I had it to over again.  This experience has been very educational though, so I think it was worthwhile.  (I am very familiar with the AfD process and familiar with most of the CSD#A* and CSD#G* criteria, but not so much outside of that scope)  Thanks again! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly Speedy Delete, as per Black Falcon above. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. That is a very narrow focus for a portal!  SilkTork  *YES! 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above: It's a narrow topic for a portal. Midorihana ~いいですね?  はい! 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an advertisement (CSD) and as an inappropriate portal (CSD)-- Cailil  talk 19:14, 28 March 2008 (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.