Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of the Philippines

 __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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:University of the Philippines

 * – (View MfD)

This portal is just a short summary of a single article, followed by a number of red links. The topic seems very small for a portal, and the portal hasn't really been touched since its creation. The related Category:University of the Philippines portal is odd as it contains only this article. CMD (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This redlink show is a non-portal, and has been since its creation in 2013. It was redirected in 2016 to Portal:Philippines by @DexDor ... but yesterday the redirect was reverted by @UnitedStatesian as improper redirection.
 * Why did you do that, USian? I can't see any benefit to either keeping the redlink-strewn page, or of having this week-long discussion about an obvious deletion candidate. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only a handful of universities worldwide might merit a portal; no evidence this is among them. And even if it were, this is an unfinished framework, not a portal. It even manages not to link to its header topic, which is a flaw. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Old not-a-portal,  4 subpages, created 2013-02-25 14:27:48 by User:Diesscamomot. Portal:University of the Philippines. Pldx1 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Explanation can be found in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Narendra Modi, above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that the redirect made by User:DexDor in January 2016 was a good-faith bad redirect. I agree that Redirects Are Cheap, and I know that for that reason, many editors think that redirecting, as a backdoor deletion, is almost always the proper method of dealing with bad pages that need deletion.  I disagree, and think that redirecting is often the easy wrong way to deal with bad pages.  My experience at Articles for Creation is that too often the existence of a questionable redirect makes it harder to clean up.  In particular, a bad portal should not be redirected to a better portal, but discussed for deletion.  I think that User:UnitedStatesian was faced with a situation where there was no right answer.  I think that Redirects for Discussion would have been the less wrong answer, but I can understand why they chose to undo the bad redirect and take the bad portal to deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Narendra Modi. DexDor(talk) 18:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - At this point, this is a bad portal that never was finished and never should have existed. It is a zombie that has been brought back to life by removing a lead bullet.  It now needs a silver bullet.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 1 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.