Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nelson Mandela

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Nelson Mandela

 * – (View MfD)

Single person portals are redundant to the main article which already links to everything we have on the subject. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete  - Automated portal,  0 subpages, created 2018-09-12 09:31:50 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Nelson Mandela. Pldx1 (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POG and prior consensus generated at several MfDs.   SITH   (talk)   12:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , which MfDs, specifically? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd say:
 * Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox
 * Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox
 * Miscellany for deletion/People Portals A-C
 * Miscellany for deletion/2018-12-28 Biography portals
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mikhail Lermontov
 * constitute clear consensus that portals which have been created by a low-effort, automated process by are in violation of portal guidelines and botlike editing practices and should be deleted without prejudice to thoughtful, curated recreation.  The first two on that list were started by, the third was started by  and the final two were started by myself.  After lengthy discussions, all of them have been closed as delete.  I believe this nomination is therefore based on precedent, as well as the aforementioned guidelines.    SITH   (talk)   11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, much clearer. I thought by "clear consensus" you were saying, like the nominator did, that there was consensus for no single person portals, UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator has not given a policy- or guideline-based reason for the nomination. And the statement of "links to everything we have" is patently false: Asimbonanga, in the did you know section, is not linked from the main article. The single person consensus has not spread to Portal:Jane Austen or Portal:Julius Caesar, so somewhere between those individuals and the ones who have been deleted is a level of breadth-of-subject where a portal can be justified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it is possible that a related page may not be directly linked from a bio. In Mandela's case there is a section Nelson_Mandela that deals with such cultural references where I've added a link to the song. The topic of Mandela songs was already covered with two examples given. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 257,000+ readers on the main article vs 145 on the portal in 30 days - portal views is a rounding error on the main article so evidently readers prefer the main article to explore Mandala as a topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Portal:Julius Caesar has not been tested at MfD, nor have your original examples of Portal:Jesus or Portal:Muhammad. Legacypac (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * it is also a mass created portal by TTH "Started portal, in tab batch save, after batch was inspected: image slideshow minimum 2 pics, no empty sections. No visible formatting or Lua errors upon save, but there may be intermittent errors; report such bugs at WT:WPPORTD so that they can be fixed. Thank you" Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you are changing your deletion rationale? UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded it - not like we have not had this discussion about single person portals a few hundred times already. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, but just to reiterate my consistent position: I do not subscribe to the position to which you apparently do, namely that any and all single-person portals fail WP:POG and so should be deleted. I will continue to !vote keep in any MfD for a single-person portal that, like this one, I believe meets the WP:POG guideline and that does not have some other issue that justifies deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @UnitedStatesian, I think that the nominator overstates the consensus on single-person person portals. Yes, very many have been deleted at MFD, but in several other cases bundled discussions have closed as no consensus because editors want to assess articles individually rather than make a blanket rule.  My reading of consensus on single-person portals is "usually no, but there may be some exceptions".
 * In this case, I am unpersuaded that the breadth of the topic is sufficient for a portal. So far as I can see, the 89 article-links on the navbox Template:Nelson Mandela provide excellent navigation on the head article and the related pages, and I don't see how a portal would add value per WP:PORTAL: "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".
 * We may disagree on that, but see also my delete vote below, where I explain how this portal is just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the navbox. Even if you think that there should be a portal on this topic, why keep this one, which is just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The greatness of the subject is not inherited by the portal. As Legacypac says, this is an automated mass-produced portal which has no maintenance, because we know that the portal platoon do not maintain their portals, and no guarantee of reliability.  We do know that their portals add no value and introduce risk.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I strongly disagree with the notion of the nominator that (almost) all single person portals should be deleted. (Also to the absurd idea that everything the encyclopedia has on a moderate topic can just be linked from the head article, without regard to its relative importance.) Mandela is an iconic figure with a featured head article and a fairly well-populated category who could potentially form the basis of a decent portal. However, this seems to be another one-click wonder by The Transhumanist that's slipped through the net. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, navbox-based automated pseudo-portal.
 * This portal builds its article list solely off two navboxes: Template:Nelson Mandela and Template:Nelson Mandela series.
 * Template:Nelson Mandela is a navbox placed at the bottom of articles; Template:Nelson Mandela series is a sidebar place at the top right of articles.
 * The scope of the sidebar Template:Nelson Mandela series (with 20 links) is just a subset of the 89 links on the navbox Template:Nelson Mandela. No links are unique to the sidebar.
 * So the portal would have exactly the same set of articles in its "selected articles" list if was built off the navbox alone.
 * That makes it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of both the navbox and the head article which transcludes it,. For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.
 * The significance of Mandela does not alter either the redundancy of the portal, or the very broad consensus that this type of redundant fork should be deleted. Note that if the portal had been built without including the redundant sidebar Template:Nelson Mandela series as a source, it would have been included in the second set batch of mass nominations.  I have just checked the lists I used to built that nomination, in which I started with the full set of TTH's portalspace page creations in the August–September 2018 period. Portal:Nelson Mandela was in each of the first 7 steps of refining the list. It was removed only in the last step because it was built off two templates, not one.  Since the second template is redundant, that makes its exclusion a false negative. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient scope to exist. Might need some work due to how it was created, but needing work is not a sufficient reason to delete. WaggersTALK  10:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Waggers, your assertion that needing work is not a sufficient reason to delete is simply wrong. The consensus against portals forked off navboxes was established only two weeks ago at one of the biggest-scope and most widely-attended MFDs ever. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 1 May 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.