Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Small towns in California Portals
- 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 . — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Small Cities in California Portals
[edit]Another small city mass created TTH portal. 16 pages in the scope including the school district, two high schools, a bridge, a couple streets, a couple neighborhoods. Normal small city stuff. Nothing about this city of 58,000 people suggests it needs a portal except the existence of a navbox to piggyback the portal on. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Albany, California as an example of a similar town.
Delete. An automated portal only worth of an automated deletion. Pldx1 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
list has changed, the conclusion remains. See below. Pldx1 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)- Delete all of these: do not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - It takes longer than a minute to consider whether to delete a portal. I am not referring to any other existing portals because I reserve the right to argue for their deletion also. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bundled Malibu pop 12,000 and more I found in another category. The categorization of these mass creations is awful. Part of the portal a minute program. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - more unnecessary and not at all useful mass created portals. Meszzy2 (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not counting the nomination, there are four participants. One !voted when one portal was listed and the other three !voted when around a dozen were listed; nobody but the nominator has participated since the nom added nearly three dozen pages. Given that the participants all favored deletion, I don't think we need to restart things, but as far as I'm concerned this is a brand new MfD as of this relisting. I invite Pldx1, UnitedStatesian, Robert McClenon, and Meszzy2 to revisit their participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Not counting the nomination, there are four participants. One !voted when one portal was listed and the other three !voted when around a dozen were listed; nobody but the nominator has participated since the nom added nearly three dozen pages. Given that the participants all favored deletion, I don't think we need to restart things, but as far as I'm concerned this is a brand new MfD as of this relisting. I invite Pldx1, UnitedStatesian, Robert McClenon, and Meszzy2 to revisit their participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have found even more small California Cities since putting this together, but if we can deal with this batch we can do another batch later based on the results here. Legacypac (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:Amorymeltzer - I am confused. You say that we do not need to restart things, but you appear to be restarting things. Can this be closed as Delete for the portals that were listed when the three of us !voted, and as No Result for the added portals, and can the nominator be told to start over with the added portals? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Is this being restarted as a brand new MFD, or is this being split into two MFDs? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, let me clarify. I meant that I'm not closing this procedurally since nobody has actually opined since the pages listed changed dramatically, but it needs at least one relist and I would prefer not to have to consider the previous !votes. Basically, I'm avoiding bureaucracy, but things have changed enough since you !voted that I'd expect you and everyone else (would want) to explicitly affirm that !vote. Does that make more sense? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please (re)vote on this big bundle. Nothing else will be added after the relist and anything else we find will be placed in a new bundle. It's a lot of work to build a new bundle to replace this one and listing these seperately as found would have created even more work for everyone voting. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically this. Had there been some dissent among the original participants, I might've procedurally closed it, but since everyone agreed initially, I think avoiding the extra hassle is something we can reasonably do. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete them all
Listing one by one, to be sure
|
|---|
|
- Comment - This page doesn't exist----------------: Portal:Alhambra, California.
@Amorymeltzer: You are right. Changing the list during the process was not the best procedure, and what you proposed is efficient. Pldx1 (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- That one got nominated twice somehow and has been deleted now. Look at the dates and create times. They are not in order but you can see creations every minute and many an hour. It took a lot of work searching these down because so many portals contain the word California, far more effort then to create the. Legacypac (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear User:Legacypac. There are comments that are not criticism! I was simply saying that I have done my duty as a reviewer, to the point of having detected that one of these garbage portals was deleted at the time of my review. I have no doubt that it was not deleted at the time of your review (indeed, I have no doubt to the point of not verifying !). Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your list shows how recklessly these were made. Legacypac (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear User:Legacypac. There are comments that are not criticism! I was simply saying that I have done my duty as a reviewer, to the point of having detected that one of these garbage portals was deleted at the time of my review. I have no doubt that it was not deleted at the time of your review (indeed, I have no doubt to the point of not verifying !). Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- That one got nominated twice somehow and has been deleted now. Look at the dates and create times. They are not in order but you can see creations every minute and many an hour. It took a lot of work searching these down because so many portals contain the word California, far more effort then to create the. Legacypac (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all - Recasting vote on the new batch as I think it's pretty clear from past discussions that a small town is simply not a broad enough topic to require the use of a portal to help organize and navigate all the articles in its scope. Aside from that, all the portals listed here seem to be navbox portals provide no additional value or benefit over the main article about the town itself - just basically a worse much shorter version of it. Meszzy2 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all small- to medium-sized towns aren't sufficiently broad topics to justify portals, and there is little value in the portals created by the automated script anyway. We have portals on California itself and large cities such as Los Angeles, that should be sufficient. Hut 8.5 19:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All as per many comments above. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All. These are are small towns/cities, and they all fail the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 18 April 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.