Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Al Jolson
- 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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Al Jolson[edit]
Too narrow a focus for a portal. Individual entertainers don't need portals that make a poor substitute for their article.
- ► Al Jolson
- no subcategories
sums this up. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. While this appears to have >20 articles, nearly all of the articles in the template that I sampled, except for Al Jolson itself, are stubs or poorly developed articles, mainly focused on listing notable recordings by people other than Jolson. Some do not even mention Jolson in the summary extract ("The song became the signature song for singer and actress Lillian Roth..."). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete yet another single-person portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, pending establishment of criteria. We need to decide categorically whether we can have portals on single individuals (or singular-entity but multi-individual performers, such as jazz and rock bands), and treat them consistently. If we can't have a portal on Al Jolson or Men at Work, then we likely shouldn't have one on U2 or Monty Python or Mozart. If we can have portals on all those things, then by what criteria? Can we also have a portal on Snooki or Tommy Tutone or Kim Wilde or Ron Jeremy or Paul Winfield? The current deletion-spree behavior is not constructive, since it's randomly resulting in deletes and keeps without a consistent rationale in either direction. In this particular case, the "20 articles" cut-off suggested by WP:POG has been met. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC); revised 19:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Votes of keep pending criteria are not helpful. We have been advised by TTH that all portals were kept at the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC and that endorsed any portals like those 1500, therefore even the existing WP:POG don't matter. WikiProject Portals has been unable to propose any criteria even after the community shut down mass creation. The Portals geoup was shooting for 10,000 portals [1] because ot was fun and some sort of race against time. Since these can be recreated in 12 seconds, please go get Portal criteria passed by an RFC so we have something new to judge pages against. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in any he-said-she-said arguments, and will not be badgered by someone trying do decide what I can and can't say here. We do need more specific criteria. In absence of them, WP:POG applies. Its numeric requirement is met in this case. Its vague breadth-related language is disputed as to interpretation, across many of these discussions. WP:EDITING policy applies, in absence of clearer criteria (i.e., the policy default for reader-facing content is keep, unless some specific matter of WP:DP applies, or something derived from DP, such as WP:CSD). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I don't believe the portal minimum is here met -- there are required to be at least 20 articles that are fully developed, not tagged for major problems, and relevant to the portal topic. I'm just not seeing those here. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- In my universe, 25>20. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I don't believe the portal minimum is here met -- there are required to be at least 20 articles that are fully developed, not tagged for major problems, and relevant to the portal topic. I'm just not seeing those here. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in any he-said-she-said arguments, and will not be badgered by someone trying do decide what I can and can't say here. We do need more specific criteria. In absence of them, WP:POG applies. Its numeric requirement is met in this case. Its vague breadth-related language is disputed as to interpretation, across many of these discussions. WP:EDITING policy applies, in absence of clearer criteria (i.e., the policy default for reader-facing content is keep, unless some specific matter of WP:DP applies, or something derived from DP, such as WP:CSD). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Votes of keep pending criteria are not helpful. We have been advised by TTH that all portals were kept at the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC and that endorsed any portals like those 1500, therefore even the existing WP:POG don't matter. WikiProject Portals has been unable to propose any criteria even after the community shut down mass creation. The Portals geoup was shooting for 10,000 portals [1] because ot was fun and some sort of race against time. Since these can be recreated in 12 seconds, please go get Portal criteria passed by an RFC so we have something new to judge pages against. Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete WP:POG is supposed to be an agreed standard on portal requirements. It says that portals have to be about broad topic areas and that they have to link to associated categories. The scope of this portal is songs which are associated with Al Jolson. This isn't a broad topic and we don't have any related categories, because being performed by someone isn't considered to be a sufficiently defining characteristic. Hut 8.5 18:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Correction on " since it's randomly resulting in deletes and keeps " since to date about 160 portals have been deleted and zero kept in 2019. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 23 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.