Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tacitus

 __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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tacitus


Insufficient scope for a portal per WP:POG. Portals are supposed to be about broad topic areas, this one isn't. Category:Tacitus and subcategories contain 14 articles, which is all the scope available.  Hut 8.5  19:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete but this is backward. The portal enthusiasts claim the guidelines are out of date and they can create any portal they like. 4500 automated portals later we are left to do the hard work of sorting these mass creations one by one. Significantly more effort is going into analysis and MFD by other users then when into topic selection. The burden of meeting the guidelines should fall on the page creator not on everyone else to apply and debate compliance with the guideline they dismiss as worthless. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Regarding above, "The portal enthusiasts claim the guidelines are out of date", I have only seen one single user who has stated this opinion (it wasn't me). However, it has been potentially misrepresented above that more than one person has stated this. Some diffs to qualify the assertion would be helpful, otherwise, it's just an empty statement with no merit, meandering into the area of potentially being WP:ASPERSIONS against WikiProject Portals members. North America1000 02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, the statement is supported by words and actions. You created Portal:Winemaking and others that have been deleted for failing the WP:POG suggesting you personally don't believe the guideline is applicable/up to date/valid. In direct statements for example in Miscellany_for_deletion:
 * In response to a quote of WP:POV "A guideline that I don't have to follow.... ɱ (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)"
 * "These portals meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draw from an appropriate selection of articles, and serves as useful navigational pages. Furthermore, WP:X3 is mentioned in the nomination, but this is only a proposal, and is not an actual criteria for speedy deletion. North America1000 03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)" (dismissing the broad subject area part of the guideline raised by other users)
 * "That (POG) is totally out of date. That guideline was never followed. People just made portals on what interested them. And, so by the time of the RfC WP:ENDPORTALS in 2018, portals represented a wide range of scope, yet the community decided to keep them all. That set of 1500 portals is the representative set. Portals of similar scope to the portals in that set are okay by the community.   — The Transhumanist   20:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)" (Statements Northamsrica1000 did not disagree with even though they posted many times in the same conversation)
 * "This MfD attempts to override community consensus. The community decided to keep Portal:Briarcliff in the RfC WP:ENDPORTALS, and all other portals. The approximately 1500 portals that existed at that time, including Portal:Briarcliff, represented a wide range of scope; some had over a hundred entries in them, while others had just a few. Yet, the community decided to keep them all. The portals guideline has not been updated to reflect the community consensus established there. WikiProjects should never have been included in the guideline, as that violates WP:OWN. As coverage grows on these subjects, so will these portals' coverage of it, automatically. Also, the Portals WikiProject is dedicated to improving portal design further, including how and from where entries are automatically gathered. As the tech improves, so will the individual portals.   — The Transhumanist   20:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)" (statements Northamerica1000, and no other Portal project member, has disagreed with even though Northamerica1000 posted many times in the same thread.)
 * "You're just too stubborn to admit it doesn't break the wildly vague and outdated guideline, something I'm not fully bound to follow...."User:Ɱ 20:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TTH is the leader/newsletter writer/chief enthusiast for the portal project and his statements reflect actual practice so they seem to accurately reflect the opinions of the portal project members generally, though of course there will be some differences of opinion. Hope that helps you out. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the quote from me above, "These portals meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines...", you're absurdly taking this quote entirely out of context from an entirely different discussion about other content. The quote you have taken out of context is from one of the bundled nominations that have occurred at MfD; this is not my opinion about all portals whatsoever. Please stop mischaracterizing people in this manner; it's quite inaccurate, and your apparent intended typecasting is highly inappropriate. It also appears that you have taken other users' commentary entirely out of context here as well. This is in part why diffs should be used. North America1000 22:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum for general discussion of portals or portal guidelines, only for discussion of this portal.  Hut 8.5  22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, but gross misrepresentations about my personal views posted by a stranger on the internet had to be addressed, because typecasting people in this manner is wrong. North America1000 22:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge or broaden. This needs to be significantly broadened, something like Portal:Roman historiography or Portal:Roman historians would probably work, but I've run out of time to investigate what else exists in that sphere already. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did nominate Portal:Plutarch recently.  Hut 8.5  22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge or broaden - As someone who has maintained the article Tacitus on Christ for years I agree with Thryduulf that this seems too narrow a subject for a portal. I don't really see the harm in a Tacitus portal but I don't get the point of it either. Despite being active on WP for nine years I was only very vaguely aware that there were such things as portals until the current big fuss about them kicked off. Portal:Roman historians seems like a better idea,if someone wants to go to the trouble of creating and maintaining it, it certainly won't be me.Smeat75 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the use of a portal for a single author, who did not produce that many works. His article is enough. T8612  (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete – Yet another narrow-focus portal created recently when creating portals has been fun and too easy. No reason to think that this one is needed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:44, 27 March 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.