Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Warriors


 * 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 debate was Delete - Creator agreed to deletion based on policies cited by nominator and others. Based on arguments by User:Shoemaker's Holiday and other evidence regarding the good faith nature of this effort, portal will be userfied to creator's userspace on request. Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Warriors
Portal just barely escapes qualifying for speedy deletion, with a total of four articles relevant to the portal being rated as Start class or better. Three or less such articles makes it a clear candidate for speedy deletion. Portal also has very limited scope. Creator of the portal is being notified of this discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh... I don't see the harm in it, and it's only two days old. Give it a month and see if it improves. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the creator - I know this portal needs a lot more articles. I'm currently expanding it. Shrewpelt (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing these comments, I now see I should wait for more articles to be made and improved before creating it again. Delete. Shrewpelt (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Build the articles, then build the portal. Metros (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems a little too much like ganging up on what appears to be a fairly young editor for my tastes. Give him a chance. Is there even a policy related to this proposed deletion? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Portal/Guidelines, a portal should generally have 30 "high quality" articles (defined as FAs and GAs or articles that deal with the subject "substantially or comprehensively"). According to Category:WikiProject Warriors articles, there are only 22 articles period.  By quality, you have 1 good article, 2 B-classes, 3 start-classes, and 14 stub-classes.  I really think that the focus should be on improving those articles before there is a portal formed.  Metros (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. The existing content could be nominated for inclusion in Portal:Literature, Portal:Speculative fiction, Portal:Cats and the like, but, until the content reaches the levels above, I don't think that there's quite the justification for this having a separate portal yet. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's not really a good reason for deleting Shrewpelt's work in setting up an attractive, aesthetically pleasing portal, and telling him to remake it all again later on. WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built seems relevant here. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah but he can make it as beautiful as he wants and it's still not going to meet the content standards for our portals. Portals aren't just about looking nice, they're about quality content.  Metros (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Several other portals have recently been deleted, many of them containing effectively the same number of quality articles, on the basis of the extremely narrow scope of the subject, which applies here as well, and the lack of sufficient quality content. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears2, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé Knowles, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Madonna (entertainer), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mariah Carey, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sheryl Crow, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:My Chemical Romance for substantially similar recent decisions. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are these similar? Those were determined on scope, but this portal features three authors and a series of books - which seems like it ought to be a wider scope than an entertainer and songs [which, lacking a plot, do not generally make good articles]. If expanding the articles with secondary sources would be a problem, that might be one thing, but if it's reasonable to expect that GAs on the books are possible, we should give the lad a chance to do it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we gave every person who had a chance to do anything, we would have almost as many portals as articles. If such is requested, when the scope does get to be enough to recreate the portal, I can undelete it myself. But we don't keep portals around on the possibility, however good, that the related content will get good enough to qualify for having one at some undetermined future date. And the essay you linked to related to articles; portals are supposed to meet the criteria from the day they're created, unlike articles. For what it's worth, I've joined the related project and will try to do what I can to help improve the articles myself. But, until that content gets good enough to justify a portal, it should be removed. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (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.