Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom

 __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. Seems like most participants are convinced that WP:POG is not met Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom

 * (convenience link: subject article Prostitution in the United Kingdom)
 * (convenience link: subject article Prostitution in the United Kingdom)

Delete Has the same fundamental issue as the previously deleted Portal:Prostitution in Canada, Portal:Prostitution in India and Portal:Prostitution in Japan: not broad enough subject matter to meet the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: considering the consensus at the three now-deleted "Prostitution in X" portals, I think it's fair to say consensus is that "Prostitution in X" doesn't pass WP:POG. Invoke IAR.    SITH   (talk)   14:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-10-28T12:59:54Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC) . changed, as a result of the following discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. It is driven by sub-pages that were manually created which deliver a smaller number of selected, more relevant articles and images than the "automated" navbox driven portals. --John B123 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . The first line of this portal says: This portal was created using  The 3rd line of this portal says:  . In other words, this portal is so poorly maintained that no maintainer is given, while subpages=none indicates that no subpages are used (or even are to be kept). Moreover, when reading the 'images' and 'articles' --edited once for all 2018-10-28-- it becomes obvious that, the infobox of the main article being shamefully empty, some elements have been taken from this  main article and put there. E.g. the 'images' contains a grand-total of 8 pictures. Whaow ! Some figures about views during the current month are given at: [|Cross_Bones]. Pldx1 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A case of only seeing what you want to see, if you had looked further you would have seen:
 * Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected general articles - Selected articles transcluded from sub-page Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected general articles
 * Transclude files as random slideshow | Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected images Images transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected images
 * Random portal component|max=3|header=Did you know...|headertemplate = Box-header colour|subpage=DYK DYK transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/DYK
 *   Recognised content transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Recognised content
 * As you have obviously taken such an interest in the page history, I'm surprised you din't notice that the sub-pages were added after the "Portal maintenance status" note. I'm also somewhat puzzled by your stating the portal doesn't use subpages but then quote the creation date of the sub-pages --John B123 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . I was not saying the portal doesn't use subpages. I was saying the portal maintenance status line indicates that no subpages are used (or even are to be kept). And this is the case even now. Moreover, even now, the maintainer= field in this Portal maintenance status line is not filled. If it was, I could move to Keep. Pldx1 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I misunderstood you. I did assume the "portal maintenance status" was automatically updated, but obviously not, so have updated it. --John B123 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep due to the just above discussion. Concerning the Portal maintenance status, it is clear that the "New Portals Team" hasn't done their job to advertise how to deal with this key tool. Pldx1 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and we don't need any more Prostitution in Somewhere portals. BTW Portal:Prostitution is a sorry navbox based portal too. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And totally irrelevant to this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - This portal does not have the same fundamental issues as Portal:Prostitution in Canada, Portal:Prostitution in India and Portal:Prostitution in Japan, which were created as part of 1,300 portals created by a single user and navbox driven. This portal uses subpages to select relevant featured articles, images dyk etc, not random articles from a navbox. It far exceeds the minimum requirements of WP:POG. The subject is broad enough to have a considerable number of related articles above start class, including 10 FA and GA articles. Because other portals regarding prostitution have been deleted for poor quality etc, that is not a precedent to delete all portals on this subject. This nomination clearly meets the criteria for speedy keep per WP:EARLY: "Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question" --John B123 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I read the Portal: before nominating it for deletion, and if you read my nomination you will note it was based solely on the grounds of WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-area requirement; one which the three deleted portals, whatever their other faults, did not meet either. UnitedStatesian (talk)
 * Keep. I think the topic is just about wide enough for a portal, and this portal shows how to use the randomiser elements of the new-style portals together with hand-curated (subpage based) instead of navbox based selections. —Kusma (t·c) 20:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Did You Know that this portal says 15,000 people are believed to have been buried at Cross Bones, an unconsecrated graveyard for prostitutes in Southwark, south London while the article Cross Bones says By 1769 [Cross Bones] was being used as a cemetery for the poor of St. Saviour's parish. Up to 15,000 people are believed to have been buried there. Not really the same assertions. Did You Know the source of the first one ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wording has now been changed. --John B123 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral - This portal appears to be actively maintained. The narrow topic is why I am not arguing for Keep.  Other than that, this is a portal in good condition.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - A country portal is enough to contemplate all the subtopics that may exist regarding it. I think sub portals about countries (Portal:cuisine of "country", military of "country", economy of "country", in this case Prostitution in "country") are unnecessary and does not meet WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This is far too narrow a topic.  The head article Prostitution in the United Kingdom is not even a level-5 vital article, i.e. it's not even in the top 50,000 topics by priority.
 * Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this portal is is a significantly less useful navigational hub than the head article Prostitution in the United Kingdom and the navbox Template:Prostitution in the United Kingdom. It is simply un-needed. -  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Definitely not the same as the auto-generated portals, but nonetheless this is too narrow a topic. The more general Portal:Prostitution can serve this content and has a marginally better chance of drawing some eyes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 2 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.