Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sushi

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 . ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sushi

18 subtopics including several lists. Many of the subtopics are very short, under developed or can't be developed much beyond a stub like Seattle roll. The rest of the scope here is businesses that make or serve sushi that have articles, and those pages are only of interest to locals or visitors to their local market. Just not a topic well suited to a portal - the article does a better job. Even with very prominate linking by text and image from every food portal this is running less than 10 views a day compared to Sushi with 6,606 revisions since 2001-09-27, 3,344 editors, 432 watchers, 75,518 pageviews (30 days), Legacypac (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. Although it's an attractive portal and the category does have a moderate amount of content to draw from, spot checks suggest that a high proportion of the articles are stubs, short starts or orange-level tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 18 pages is sufficient scope for a portal in my opinion, with potential for future additions. The fact that many of those need further expansion is not a reason for removing the portal that links to them; if anything, drawing attention to them in a portal might attract editors to expand them further. Waggers TALK 12:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the nom statement carefully. I included page view stats. The portal will never modivate readers to improve the stubs around the topic. Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed the portal and believe it passes WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Part of the difference between portal supporters and portal skeptics appears to be that portal supporters have great optimism that portals will improve themselves and improve Wikipedia. My guess is that the portal is not likely to expand. (If it does, what will it eat?) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a good case to merge together some of the types of sushi stubs into a types of sushi section at Sushi. California roll is just an ingredient variation. We don't need an article on each item on the sushi menu any more than each possible mix of pizza topping. This cleanup would reduce the pool of articles a lot. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ridiculously narrow scope for a portal. Sushi is a sub-topic of a sub-topic, it is not such a broad topic as to require a portal to ease navigation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 10 April 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.