Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Optometry

 __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. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Optometry


Malformed portal. A portal is composed of several sections of rotating content, including selected articles, selected images, and other relevant information. This is a few static paragraphs and some images.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep . Terrible reason for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Really ? Does this look at all like a portal to you? It doesn't have a selected article section (or a selected biography section). It doesn't have a section that lists related WikiProjects, or a topics section, or at "Things you can do" section, or a DYK section, or a related portals section, or an "Associated Wikimedia" section, or a selected quote section. While almost no portal has all of these, all portals need to have some of these. It doesn't use the portal construction templates. The person who built this created something that tried to look like a portal, but is more of a gallery. Quite simply, it's not a portal. That's not a terrible reason for deletion.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Formed incorrectly, and possibly out of process. Not created properly, not maintained, not liked to most articles. All valid reasons to delete a portal, per precedent. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sven & TPH. What makes a portal "malformed" or "incorrectly formed" or "out of process"?  If these are real and accepted notions, then you should link to the relevant policy.  Sven's view that a portal must necessarily have rotating content seems a style bias inclined to readers attracted to flashing lights and catchy jingles, and unsuited to readers looking for things more considered.  If he can't cite a policy for a need for rotating content, then I don't think this is a nomination worth considering. If the Portal seems "incomplete", as Sven argues, then why has the option of "impove it" been unaddressed? When TPH says "per precendent", is this a citable precedent?  I don't remember any trackable Portal precendents at MfD. While I am completely unconvinced that Portal space has any positive net value, and have previously supported TPH's idea of deleting the entire PortalSpace, I simply can't agree to an argument to delete something because it wasn't created right, according to the nominator's uncited definition of right.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the portal in edit mode. See how it's actually one giant table with formatting in it. That's not how portals are constructed. There's actually something called Template:Box portal skeleton that is what is used to build portals. If you look at the edit view for a properly built portal, it isn't using tables, it's using a series of templates. That not only makes everything look cleaner, but prevents the display from breaking easily, as there are a whole bunch of things that you can't do inside of tables without breaking them.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. So by "malformed portal" you mean "horribly and hopelessly formatted", and you suggest Portal:Massachusetts as a better example, and please see Template:Box portal skeleton.  Offer userification, should someone want to attempt to reuse the text or image choices.  Delete.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I support this deletion because this is a portal with a two year-history for a portal with only a minute amount of edits and clearly no wikiproject support. LT910001 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Glaisher   [talk]  17:03, 16 November 2013 (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.