Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Guernsey

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) 02:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Guernsey[edit]

Single navbox automatically created portal, not sure why it was missed in the recent sweep but I suspect it's because it was created by overwriting a redirect. The scope isn't vast (Guernsey has a population of 63,026) and there is a large degree of overlap with Portal:Channel Islands, as Guernsey is one of the two main islands of the Channel Islands. Hut 8.5 21:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pure portalspam, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the navbox {{Guernsey topics}} and the head article Guernsey. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

The nominator @Hut 8.5 is correct that the reason this was omitted from the mass nominations is because it was previously a redirect. The pair of mass nominations were built from analysis of lists which started with @The Transhumanist's page creations. However, this discovery by Hut 8.5 prompted me to do a search of the rest of the 69 portal redirects which I created over the years. Those which have been created to automated single-navbox portals are now listed at MFD:15 pseudo-portals built on former redirects. Many thanks, Hut 8.5! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a silver bullet. This is a zombie portal. It was created robotically from a redirect left by BrownHairedGirl, who tried to redirect it to the Channel Islands. The rationale given by both Hut8.5 and BrownHairedGirl is correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete place is too small to warrent a portal and scope overlaps with Channel Islands. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as "15 pseudo-portals built on former redirects". Pldx1 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Guernsey has sufficient scope to have a portal in its own right. The format of the current portal might need some work due to the way it was created, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Waggers TALK 10:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you think automatically created navbox portals have value and that Guernsey is sufficient scope I don't see any reason to have a separate portal from the Channel Islands one. Jersey and Guernsey comprise practically all the population and land area of the Channel Islands. Furthermore the smaller islands are all administratively associated with either Guernsey or Jersey, and that also seems to be in scope for the portal. Therefore having portals on Guernsey and Jersey would exactly duplicate the scope of the Channel Islands portal. Even in the main Guernsey article the only link to the Guernsey portal is hidden inside a closed navbox, whereas there is a prominent link to the Channel Islands portal. Hut 8.5 17:49, 30 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.