Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Plutarch

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Plutarch

Insufficent scope for a portal per WP:POG. Category:Plutarch and Category:Works by Plutarch have 7 articles between them. The "selected articles" section has been bulked out with articles on historical figures Plutarch wrote about, which I don't think is a coherent topic. Hut 8.5 20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that including the historical figures about whom Plutarch wrote makes the portal amorphous. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are only a handful of relevant articles and several of those are very short. I agree that figures that were subjects of Plutarch's writing as well as translators of his works are insufficiently connected to form a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, 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 is not met, which is why I lean delete on it; there only appear to be 6 directly pertinent articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current "deletion spree" just undoes the recent "creation spree", returning us to the status quo ante. —Kusma (t·c) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all TTH portals with no manual edits, regardless of whether the topic merits a portal or not. In this case, I currently don't see a use for a portal. —Kusma (t·c) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the use of a portal for a single author, who did not produce that many works. His article is enough. T8612 (talk) 03:03, 26 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.