Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pseudosuchians

 __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: no consensus. No consensus to delete or keep. Obviously there's a larger conversation to be had about Portals, so we should try to get that accomplished. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Pseudosuchians

 *  J 947 ( c ) (m)   05:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Created in 2015 and never touched. Never even finished and missing even the most basic content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and that most portals should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, clearly. bd2412  T 00:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no policy requirement for a page to be edited at a certain frequency. Wikipedia has no deadline. There is no requirement for a page to be complete or all non-featured content would be up for deletion. The portal does not lack "even the most basic content" because it exhibits multiple featured articles, a featured picture, nearly ten pages of DYK hooks, links to other portals and to content on sister projects, and so on. No rationale advanced by the nominator is supported by actual deletion policy. All three members supporting this deletion nomination have been actively involved in a campaign to remove all portals from Wikipedia, of which I was the most prominent opponent. This is an agenda-driven nomination. Abyssal (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No it's not. I have nominated dusty portals for a long time and stumbled across this one by wandering around randomly. I haven't even participated in the discussion you linked, so there's no way I could've been creating an agenda. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I saw your name in there when I thought BD2412 and Legacypac's names sounded familiar and went back to check the original discussion. My apologies. In any case being "dusty" is not a criterion for deletion. In fact this portal does not meet any of the 14 criteria for deletion listed on the deletion policy page. Abyssal (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know how much of a campaign there is, but yes some time ago I commented on a discussion User:SmokeyJoe started about Portals. I generally support deleting portals as I find them quite inferior to other ways of getting around the site, and they don't impart much useful info even when properly built out.  I'm glad Abyssal feels so prominent though. It's good to feel important and needed. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I said I was prominently involved in that one discussion, which anyone can see simply by seeing how many times I posted in it. Abyssal (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pseudosuchia. Portals were a thing during the exponential growth phase of Wikipedia, 2002-2007. Now, collectively, they are moribund. They are either neglected, or work sinks, detrimental to the mainspace topics. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is silly, of negative net impact, for people to work on the portal while Pseudosuchia remains "Start-Class". It draws not just that person but others away from the mainspace article needing attention.  Exhibiting multiple featured articles is great, but what about the parent article?  I note a very weird thing in that this and many Portals do not link to their parent article, it is as if Portal Space is being used as a shadow mainspace.  See Wikipedia_talk:Portal.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that the reason we needed to delete this portal was that no one has edited it recently? Now we need to delete it because it gets edited too often? I understand some of your concerns about the portal system, but nominations of individual portals for deletion aren't the place to hash those out. The lack of a link to the main article in the header section is a genuine oversight, though, and I've added one. Abyssal (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank for linking. I think it is a common genuine oversight. It could be systematical of a systematic problem of Portal editors getting disconnected from articles. The problem is not that it will get edited, but that it will attract readers and potential editors away from the mainspace article. It’s not a current problem as google currently ignores Portals (is there a message there), but that could change. NB I do not hate Portals.  This one is a nice looking Portal.  If you tell me you will improve the parent article before the deadline I will change my !vote. At worst, I would have this Portal reversibly redirected until the mainspace article is brought to FA status. I might even back down to GA status, but it really should get above Start-Class. Shouldn’t this Portal be transcuding the article’s lede?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Legacypac, or as a second choice redirect per SmokeyJoe. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh look, it's another member of that anti-portal discussion trying to achieve piece-meal what they couldn't achieve through community consensus. Abyssal (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please kindly remove the stick from your ass and stop falsely assuming that everyone is trying to go against you. I wasn't even on the anti-portal discussion and you still assumed I had some kind of agenda. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're still literally the only other participant in this discussion who wasn't involved in that campaign and almost every advocate for deleting this specific portal brought up their opposition to portals in general as their reason for doing so. You can't say I'm making false accusations when they're openly confessing. Abyssal (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. We don't have a community consensus that is either strongly favorable or strongly unfavorable to portals, and I am just participating in MfDs for portals as they come up (other than one where I nominated three subpages from a portal). Anyway, consensus can change. I have only participated in five MfDs for portals or portal subpages this year, and in one of them my recommendation was "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no campaign as far as I see it. Portals have been sporadically nominated for deletion for years.  I used to just ignore MfD nominations of Portals, but they keep coming, and many of them are completely hopeless, hopeless in terms of being someone's work but of no impact as measured by page views.  I have usually opposed deletion simply because archiving is more appropriate.  In doing so, I confounded many requests for deletion.  This is not productive, so I opened the discussion at WT:Portal to argue for a systematic approach to archiving (by redirection I suggest) the majority moribund Portals.  I see a consensus, a clear consensus, that everyone agrees that something should be done, that the status quo is not working.  Agreeing here, are three divergent groups:
 * (1) Delete. People who would simply delete most, all but the best;
 * (2) Archive/redirect. People like me who would archive most, the ones that are not up-to-date or receive negligible page views (or my recent idea, ones that are not associated with a parent article that is a featured article); and
 * (3) Develop dramatically. People like Abyssal and The Transhumanist, who would would like to see them developed, dramatically developed, into something that they are clearly not now.
 * Personally, I see (2) as completely compatible with (3), with the implicit assumption that the dreams of (3) are not happening soon. I think the people in group (1) consider (3) to be a pipe dream.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep in the hope on encouraging work in the area. Unlike an article, this is a user guide, and merely has to be of potential use.  DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep: Agree with DGG re potential use. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Implicit in DGG's and Ret.Prof's !votes is that the Portal is not up to scratch and that development is wanted.  I agree.  I disagree with deleting, because it is a good start, to be worked from.  I am ambivalent about archiving.  I think many Portals should be archived, but I wouldn't start with this one.  A more accurate !vote from me would be Tag as inactive or archived, until someone develops it, but with a wish that someone who wants to develop it should consider first improving the parent article.  However, that is no more than a wish, because volunteers do not tell other volunteers how to spend their efforts.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   05:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:J947, please desist with pointless relisting. All it does is scramble the MfD order out of its chronological listing.  It does not attract new reviews.  A relist with a re-focusing comment can be a good idea.  A relist drawing attention to important new information revealed after early !votes can be an excellent relist, and calls for pinging of the earlier participants.  A content-free, empty-procedural relist is annoying.  Presumably, in reviewing before relisting, you read the whole discussion?  Surely, you could say something?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait for the outcome of the portal discussion – The discussion has no current consensus, and this MfD was turning into a pointless battleground a few weeks ago, with has no positive connotations. I think the best closure would be to close as NC, with no prejudice against renominating if the portal discussion finishes that way.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   23:23, 3 November 2017 (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.