Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Men at Work

≈  __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) 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Men at Work


Just barely passes WP:WPPORT's recommendation of 20 related articles (it has 21 listed in "topics"), but clearly not a big enough portal topic seeing as it has no selected images. This portal had better run and better take cover. — python coder   (talk &#124; contribs) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, not enough thought has gone into this portal. If you don't have any images, how about not including a "selected images" section and finding something else instead? —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * empty section removed.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Make that . There are still no selected images, and that doesn’t reflect well on this portal. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the article does a better job of covering the topic then any design of portal could. The article links all the sub articles on albums and songs for a band. The article hosts available photos just fine. A portal is just a distraction that fails the reader - and the readers have spoken. The article got 25,300+ pages views in the last 30 days while this portal got 11 page views in the same 30 days (at least three of which are from the people discussing it here, and the rest are likely bots and web crawlers.).   Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fixing bugs in an unnecessary portal is a waste of bug-fixing time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, pending establishment of criteria. We need to decide categorically whether we can have portals on single individuals (or singular-entity but multi-individual performers, such as jazz and rock bands), and treat them consistently. If we can't have a portal on Men at Work or Al Jolson, then we likely shouldn't have one on U2 or Monty Python or Mozart.  If we can have portals on all those things, then by what criteria? Can we also have a portal on Snooki or Tommy Tutone or Kim Wilde or Ron Jeremy or Paul Winfield?  The current deletion-spree behavior is not constructive, since it's randomly resulting in deletes and keeps without a consistent rationale in either direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleting this version of the portal does not mean there should never be a portal about the band. Most of the current portal MfDs are happening because people were asking for individual MfDs instead of nuking all automated portals. What is wrong with deleting all bad portals and keeping all good portals instead of arguing about which topics deserve portals? —Kusma (t·c) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:AADD. The "bad portals" are only "bad" (according to some people) because of lack of work on them, which is something that rectifies itself over time. There's also a programmatic prejudice against restoring any page previously deleted; the burden of proof is on the re-creator that what they've done is so different, in every salient aspect, from what was deleted previously, that it a) suppresses editorial incentive to work on creating a better replacement portal, and b) it actually endangers the work, i.e. is fairly likely to result in deletion anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Any portal that is not just will be substantially different, and if the deletion log entry references this MfD, this will be clear to the re-creator immediately. We need to be able to use TNT against auto-generated nonsense, just like we need G5 to keep banned editors in check, no matter whether having a page at a given name is a good idea or not. —Kusma (t·c) 17:59, 23 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.