Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Virginia Woolf

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 15:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Virginia Woolf


We have a very well developed article at Virginia Woolf and this old portal that displays random photos without context or full captions, the first two paragraphs of the main article, and if you purge the page, some random page about one of the author's work. This is objectively far less useful than the Virginia Woolf page. The creator is long inactive. Portal is not supported by a wikiproject and readers don't care about it. 196 page views on the portal vs 591,976 on the head article. Why bother to link to something confising and substandard when only 0.03% of readers interested in the topic stumble into and likely click through to the article immediately anyway. If not delete, just redirect. This is not an WP:X3 creation but has been edited by the reboot team. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It has a long history that should not be deleted. Solve the problem by redirect to Virginia Woolf. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For now, Neutral because this portal precedes the spree of portal creation, and I see no specific reason why this one needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not all of the photos have captions, but most have captions. It could use some work, but that has never been a valid reason to !delete.-- Auric   talk  11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Years of lack of maintenance for a portal is a reason to delete. Scope problem is another. I think very few individuals need portals. We are trying to establish some baseline for inclusion criteria. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While on one hand in general I don't want to discourage others contributing to the project in ways I don't personally value, on the other, my leaning is that portals are 13 years moribund. A few are so big that they continue on historic momentum, but the majority are moribund, and compete for attention from mainspace, negatively.  The main portal, Community portal, is not even in Portal space.  That's my long standing position.  None of it implies that deletion is the answer.  Archiving is the answer.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The proponents have made their point that single-person portals are only in order in extraordinary cases. I can't define extraordinary cases, but, like Judge Stewart, this is not one of them.  Woolf was a great writer, but there are many great writers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 21 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.