Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mikhail Lermontov

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
These portals were all created on 26 December 2018 by the same user, in clear contravention of WP:MEATBOT. Furthermore, they are all to do with biographies which contain so few pages that they fail WP:POG. An individual simply does not have the requisite number of pages for a portal to be useful.  SITH   (talk)   12:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all, trivial creations with too little effort gone into them. No prejudice against re-creation of some of these, which could be turned into proper portals with some creativity. —Kusma (t·c) 14:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all the only criteria for creation appears to be the existence of a nav box to piggyback on. Clear and wilful WP:MEATBOT by a user who knows better. No reason to let these improperly created pages stand. They are often created multiple pages a minute simply inserting the title into the exact same code each time so no real work is lost. Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't looked at all of these, but the single one I have examined in detail does have plenty of pages. I note additionally that at least one is a fictional character, not a biography. If we are deleting portals based purely on creator behaviour then I'm not sure MfD is the correct forum; otherwise these should not be bundled under a misleading deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fictional or real bio, mass created thoughtless junk. Creator refuses to face the music on these portals, instead planning to make portals redundent. They are also discussing making a script to automatically turn categories into navboxes which will lead to a lot of effort at WP:TFD. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually nominated one of these seperately but am merging in the nom statement here because it is instructive and am closing the single portal nomination:
 * Too narrow a topic as pointed out at AN "Comment. I need to investigate this issue a little further, but I was quite concerned about this before I even saw the thread, because I discovered Portal:Ursula K. Le Guin a few months ago. I've written a considerable portion of the content about Le Guin on Wikipedia, and even I think it's too narrow a topic for a portal; and when I raised this on the talk page, Transhumanist didn't respond, though they've been active. Vanamonde (Talk) Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Ping User:Vanamonde93 because I quoted them. Another single author portal like others we have deleted. The author's page is the best way to expore their life and work. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Adding to my statement at Portal Talk:Ursula K. Le Guin (quoted above); most of these individuals do not have enough material about them to justify a portal. Indeed, I'm skeptical about single-individual portals in general. If they are to be created at all, more thought needs to go into whether each of them is necessary. Delete all, with no prejudice against recreation of individual portals. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all most of these are unlikely to make viable portals due to the limited amount of content available. Per WP:POG, portals should be about broad topics and have a good supply of articles above start-class to populate the featured content section. It's clear that the process of creating these portals didn't take the appropriate amount of care to ensure that the portal was viable.  Hut 8.5  12:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all - We need to rethink all portals about individual biographies.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to nominating smaller, more thought out groups. As Espresso Addict has noted, there are plenty of major biographical topics included in this nomination. Even if they are nopt, the nomination is at a size which makes indivdual examination near-impossible. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 12:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The voters have already put in more effort considering these then it took to create 10 of them. 136 pages in one day strongly suggests the creator did not consider the topics or check the results very well. Nuke them. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all, without prejudice to suggesting some for approval if exceptionally broad. As they are automated, and based on templates which could be changed, also delete any which are exceptionally broad unless some subject-expert person or WikiProject takes responsibility for it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:28, 4 April 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.