Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations

 __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:  keep. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 20:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations

 * – (View MfD)

No historical value, like Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures.

Outdated page with dubious purpose of self-promotion, the users who most edited the page are the first placed in the ranking. Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This list, like portals themselves, has no non-mystical value, but it is not doing any harm. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Already marked as historical. The user who created it has exactly one star on the list. And yes, on a manually updated list, the user who has the most stars is probably going to be the one who updates it most... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia history.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply not useful while unmaintained. --Bsherr (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Keep history. The list itself does no harm as long as it's clear that it's a frozen historical document. Such information is probably hard to extract automatically from revision history in the future, if not impossible when the portals have been deleted. The list can be useful to study the history of the (success or failure of) portals involved. Nemo 10:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom's, 's, and 's arguments and, principally, because this amounts to pure CRUFT for lists, in any namespace. We should be recognizing Wikipedians on their content creation, mopping, ability to assess consensus, and on their WikiGnoming, not whether they can create a portal using fully- or semi-automated scripts and tools—the portals of which generally generate substantially less pageviews than the articles to which they link to. Should not be tagged as historical as, simply, there's no historical value here. Doug Mehus T · C  16:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you do realise that using automated tools to create portals only started around 2018?  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The simple inclusion of the historical is free for any user. In this case, there was no discussion about the historical value of this list, perhaps this MfD defines this. It is interesting to note that the user who added the historical tag was careful to state that the list is incomplete.


 * This matter of the "historical feature portal" bothers me, a feature content is not like a Miss Universe, or Mr. Olympia which the title remains even after the loss of the rightful attribute. Feature Portal has become a perpetual and unquestionable title.Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above as historical and helpful.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at  21:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deletion seems pointless. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 08:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, part of the history of this place. Useful to see that featured portals used to be quite spread out (very few users have more than two). No good reason for deletion has been given. —Kusma (t·c) 12:54, 6 March 2020 (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.