Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/"Vital" portals

 __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. Whether or not this organization shell should be realized and the wording of such pages can be hashed out at WT:WikiProject Portals. No prejudice against a future, separate nomination for WikiProject Portals/Vital portals level 4 and its subpages. (non-admin closure) —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Vital portals level 3


Delete These align with WP:VITAL in the article space, but there is no community consensus that these 9,990 portals should be/should have been created. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, to inform the ongoing discussion about which topics should have portals. One possible outcome, which does not seem unreasonable, is to create the remaining 381 portals on the level 3 list, whilst removing level 4 and unlisted portals unless they are of exceptional importance or quality. Certes (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question What thought process lead to teeing up Portal:City blocks for creation? Good find, the List of Portals I've been working from is missing some like Portal:South Pole while listing Portal:North Pole which suggests the push was on to create what have been termed navigation system without actually creating a proper navigation system for it. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * City block is listed as a Level-4 vital article, so its portal was automatically listed as a level-4 vital portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Automatically? No. The Level-4 vital list has had some changes since these pages were created in October 2018, but the lists for portals haven't been updated (that's probably not exactly what you meant by "automatically", but the point remains that there's enough flux in the vital lists, that I wouldn't assume that an article currently being listed as vital means it merits a portal). Plantdrew (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no need to go on a rampage for all of the new portals. We should be focusing on the ones that clearly have problems, not just a blanket deletion of content that includes good contributions. I also agree with Certes that we shouldn't be attempting mass deletion of any portals on the Level 3 or above lists unless they are very broken or unsalvageable. In any case, discussion is still underway at WT:PORTG on portal creation and deletion criteria, one of which involves the Vital Article lists. We welcome community input there. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 19:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is strong pushback on any automatically created portal. Hundreds have been created with ascript described as more automated than semi-automated.
 * A Level X Vital Article does not mean it is a Vital Portal at all. Many really important topics make a useless Portal. Anyway WP:VITAL is about deciding which articles should be pushed toward Featured Article status not which pages need a crappy automated portal which is approximately the opposite of Featured Article. Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral on all future mass nominations of portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a portal nomination Robert. X3 will not touch these todo lists. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting the infrastructure? Not a good idea.-- Auric   talk  13:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How are these infrastructure? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is not infrastructure. This is a plan for the mass creation of portals.  We have had enough trouble from the portals that have already been mass-created that an action list of planned new portals is undesirable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you find these less problematic if they were constructed less like a call to action? I find it useful to be able to match up which portals correspond to a vital article. A page like this would be less intrusive than another tracking category or something. Even better if I had a bot or script to update it periodically. I also kind of agree that Level 4 portals are a bit excessive in many cases. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 03:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply User:AfroThundr - Yes, in that case a Weak Delete would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - the pages are useful for showing at a glance which vital topics are covered by portals. Tracking tools are common for WikiProjects.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   08:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what WP:VITAL is about. It is not a list of portals to make it is a list of articles to upgrade to Feature Article status. These lists falsely suggest users should be creating portals on pages like City block Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep level 2 and 3, delete level 4. This is based on my comments at the WT:PORTG discussions - very few level 4 VAs are sufficiently broad for portal (without substantial duplication of another portal). While not every level 2/3 topic is suitable, this can be noted in the lists using some sort of annotation, and should be clarified at the top of the pages. A bot to keep the portal lists synced with the VA lists would also be a good idea. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:WikiProject Portals subpages is the proper place for playing with ideas for the future of WP:Portals.  Barring extreme problems, such as venturing into NOTWEBHOST, or real WP:PERFORMANCE issues, these subpages should be left alone for the WikiProject members to manage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 11 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.