Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Volume

 __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) 02:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Volume


Delete Narrow-subject (failing the WP:POG guideline on that count) one-click-created single-page portal. Is missing content that makes portals "enhanced main pages": no news, no links to featured content, no links to editor collaboration areas. The DYK section hints at how bad it is to build automated portals around generic terms that have multiple meanings. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom., you could say that it lacks any sort of 🆅🅾🅻🆄🅼🅴 . &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as an absurdly limited topic with an ambiguous meaning. We are continuing to clean up reckless portal creation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - In the specific case in point, as presented, the DYK really is about physical volume rather than audio volume, but there will be absurd DYKs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but very tangentially related to the subject. And don't forget book volume. And trading volume. And, and, and.UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I spent some time analysing it this afternoon, but @UnitedStatesian nominated it before I was ready.
 * Here's my reasons:
 * It's a narrow topic. A portal in this area would be better built around a wider scope, such as size or measurement.
 * Yes, the DYK is dire, like many automated DYK sections. That search technique works well with unambiguous terms, but it's poor when the key word has so many other significant uses
 * The nominator is wrong about one thing: this is not a one-click-created single-page portal. It's a two-click creation, the second click being to replace the use of Template:Volume (which is a utility template for calculating volumes) with a list of topics.
 * Unfortunately, the list is simply a dump of the articles directly in Category:Volume (without subcats), with no curation involved. Yes, I checked, using AWB, and there is an exact match between the list here and Category:Volume. It even includes the head article volume, which is already at the top of the page, but because of this sloppiness is also included in the rotation. It includes none of the topics in the subcats, such as the 127 pages in Category:Units of volume.  It doesn't even include the article Unit of volume, which should probably the top priority item to include.
 * So even though this may look like a curated portal, and is in Category:Automated portals with embedded list, it's actually just more drive-by spam, created with the same @TTH sloppy technique as Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks etc. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Better be prepared to be objected that a volume cannot be narrow. With a sufficient volume, you get the place to store the skeleton of an elephant, a statue of Julius Caesar and even TWO shipwrecks. It suffices to ask for some help at WP:Project Volume, and at another Project. At least, one of them will provide voluminous comments, if narrow help. Pldx1 (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination.   SITH   (talk)   13:05, 12 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.