Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:La Verne, California

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 . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:La Verne, California

Too small a topic for a portal. Category:La Verne, California contains only 13 articles, of which three are electoral districts of which La Verne contributes <10% of the population, so La Verne is arguably not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those topics.
Even with those pages included, the total is way below even the absurdly low minimum of 20 articles set by the fans of mass-portal-creation at WP:WPPORT.
The navbox at Template:La Verne, California does a better job at helping navigation, because a) it is displayed on the articles themselves whereas the portal requires navigation to a separate page, and b) the portal displays only one page at a time, whereas the navbox displays them all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the other small cities. Can these be bundled? Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

discussion on individual nominations vs group nominations

@Legacypac: So long as we are doing individual assessments at MFD, rather than applying a speedy criterion, I think it's usually better to do them individually. That allows a clearer focus on the issues in each case, in case anyone queries of opposes the assessment I (or any other nominator) make.

Of course, there may be some sets which merit a group nomination, such as the sets of University-of-FooState-at-location portals which you helpfully bundled yesterday ... but I think cities are a more varied set which deserves closer scrutiny.

I think that if we do enough in this way and wait for outcomes, then it may be possible to identify patterns of where consensus lies, and then start to group fuzzier sets with more confidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong there User:BrownHairedGirl. It’s about notification of stakeholders, not satisfaction of a tagging rule. Make a list. Notify all of the author. That’s enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC). I assume it is easy enough to list these Portals by creation month, and to quickly sort the single author Portals to list first? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @SmokeyJoe, but I dunno what you are on about.

@Legacypac and I were discussing the best way to organise such discussions to facilitate consensus formation, balancing the burden on multiple discussions versus the extra scrutiny of individual nomination.

I didn't mention tagging ('cos it's a trivial AWB job), and author notification is an issue however it's done (tho possibly irrelevant in practice in most portal MFDs, 'cos the creator is nearly always the serial portal-spammer @The Transhumanist=, who so far as I can detrmine has engaged with almost none of the dozens of recent MFDs of their portal creations). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BHG, I thought you were concerned about the need to mfd-tag every page. That is not necessary when one person is the sole author of every page in the list. I don’t think individual Portal nominations are the way to go. Instead, list all that are basically the same, recently made by TTH, not other non-minor authors, narrow scope. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, @SmokeyJoe. Point taken on group noms. The how-to-tackle this stuff is being discussed by me and @Legacypac at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Bots_and_AWB: would you be kind enough to join us there, rather using this page for a process meta-discusison? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to clean up. BLOCK anyone who does mass creations without an approved Bot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fram (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Portal:Greater Los Angeles. "Small cities" (i.e. big towns), like neighborhoods/boroughs, within a major metro area do not have sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic interest to support their own portals. We need to redirect these things to the pages we'll keep which subsume them, because not doing so inspires re-creation later, and the RfD maxim: "redirects are cheap". Especially when they save us hassle later. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge is useless or impossible, as these are empty pages (contentwise). The argument that "We need to redirect these things to the pages we'll keep which subsume them, because not doing so inspires re-creation later" is rather spurious, as no one thought about creating these for nearly twenty years before the current mindless, careless mass creation (where you oppose simply undoing this meatbot attempt as well). Creating redirects for those ccan just as well inspire others to create redirects like this for every town out there, which is useless clutter. Fram (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.