Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paraphilias

 __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 if pages are in scope of another specific or broader portal, they can be represented there editorially. — xaosflux  Talk 23:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Paraphilias


The second sentence clarifies this duplicates the scope of Portal:Sexual fetishism This one also overlaps with Portal:Incest, Portal:Zoophilia and maybe others. An inappropriate treatment of topics that need to be handled carefully in an article context with refs and multiple editors providing input and oversight. Legacypac (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge into Portal:Sexual fetishism per nomination. If that is deleted or merged (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sexual fetishism which looks to be heading towards "no consensus" at the moment) then merge it with Portal:Sexuality instead (but that is a second choice). Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what part of the code (there is no content) you would merge exactly? The code for both this portal and the proposed merge target only differs by two words - the portal title. Merge votes are disruptive and confusing to other editors. That I have to explain this again. To an Admin is frustrating. Legacypac (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not meets WP:POG. Not merge, Portal:Sexual fetishism not meets WP:POG too.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a topic that, if it is to be presented aggressively, which a portal does, should be presented and explored with the utmost sensitivity. This is the same comment as I made for a few related topics, including zoophilia, which is a proper subset of this.  This and the other hastily created portals do not illustrate any sort of sensitivity or explanatory value in their presentation.  They just illustrate the idea of maximizing the number of portals, and so this is doubly wrong.  We don't need a large number of additional portals, and we don't need this one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for User:Thryduulf - What is meant by merging a portal? When an article is merged, that is a copying of content.  A portal is not content, but a package for content.  What exactly really is meant by merging a portal?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merging the scope, e.g. combining the pool of articles and images etc, merging any curated content, customisation, etc, and redirecting the title. I've explained this on at least two other nominations already. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is just code, no content, not photos, no articles, etc. This has been explained to Thryduulf many times but they insist on insisting there is something to merge from an automated portal that differs by only the title from the next automated portal. Redirects in portal space are useless as they are not embedded in articles and are not reasonable search terms. No one is searching "Portal:Paraphilias" WP:CIR Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are free to disagree with my suggestions, but please refrain from denigrating those who do not share your opinions as incompetent. Adjustments to the code and resulting contents and customisations of one portal to accommodate the code and resulting content of a second portal is functionally a merge. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 1 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.