Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica

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 creator of this portal has personally proposed moving this content to userspace or to a project, making the proposal for deletion unnecessary. However, this discussion should not occur in the midst of a discussion to delete all portals, including this one. Speedy keep per WP:FORUMSHOP. This discussion should be postponed until the village pump discussion has concluded. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Prehistory of Antarctica

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A prime example of an unmaintained half built portal (nomination covers all subpages) that as been sitting in this ugly state since 2016. Delete the empty subpages and remove inboand links. Redirect portal mainpage to the corresponding mainspace page. Time and effort is better spent improving mainspace article(s). What is here is largely unattributed copies (copyvio) of existing pages. Legacypac (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone until completion of the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals. No prejudice toward re-nomination once that is complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may be that after seven days for MFD, but while the 30 days for the RFC are still running, we may identify enough cruddy half-portals to make the case for deletion of all portals obvious. That is a reason to proceed with this MFD, and this portal is crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless primary author works to greatly improve it. That user is currently active and has been notified, so presumably can comment here and start to work on the portal again, if desired. Barring that, though, I see this as an experiment that didn't really go anywhere. - dcljr (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC) [see changed !vote below][reply]
Redirect to Antarctica#Geological_history_and_palaeontology. Prehistoric fauna evidence comes from fossil records, and so is probably appropriate to spin out from the ancient geology. This portal is an example of examping portals in place of expanding mainspace, to the detriment of both. Automated content navigation, in place of portals, is desirable but should not detract from mainspace article. Geology of Antarctica I think is not a better redirect target. Do not delete. Archive can be done WP:BOLDly, bringing these things to MfD is not a good use of anyone’s time. This is the wrong forum for discussing archiving. The mfd nominations should be speedy kept WP:SK#1. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote. MFD has no other posts today so we should not worry too much about filling it up. I nominated them for deletion because I want them Deleted not redirects with no incoming links or incoming links that don't lead to a Portal - which is what happened when we redirected the ISIL portal. Recently all those redirected pages were deleted at RfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Links? Legacypac? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_2#Portal:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And before that, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2nd nomination). I believe I saw that but passed over it before putting in energy to a complicated case. I don’t object to the deletions, POV issues, disruptive author, a myriad of redirects and other things. I think there was enough bad faith involved to easily justify deletion there. Does this apply generally? No, I think not. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Can this be moved to project or userspace rather than deleted? Abyssal (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly think so. Perhaps create WP:WikiProject Portal reformation, and move them all under that. I really like your and The Transhumanist’s ideas for better logical content navigation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Archive and move under Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals would be better. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move out of portal space, per Abyssal's query. (Changed from Delete !vote above.) Userspace would be perfect for the moment, as Abyssal is the portal's creator. It can always be moved again later. (Would not recommend creating a new WikiProject just to deal with this. If such a WikiProject gets created, it should be as a result of further general discussions about portals, not as a result of this MFD.) - dcljr (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There is an ongoing overlapping discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals which should close first to avoid skirting consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated spaming of same irrelevant comment on nominations. This should be ignored as it shows no evidence that the commenter even looked at the portal under discussion. Legacypac (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close - nomination is out of order - the portal has already been nominated for deletion (along with all other portals) in a current deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals, which proposes the following: "Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace." Therefore, this portal is up for deletion twice, in two locations on Wikipedia at the same time. There are two deletion notices on the portal page. It is a form of double jeopardy. Please close this MfD, until the folks at the RfC have determined what to do about portals. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Important: This also applies to:

Comment this discussion and the others like it seem to me to be violating the policy WP:FORUMSHOP, which states "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus." This discussion should be closed per policy and if necessary re-opened at a later date when Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals has concluded. (I have repeated this comment on the other similar discussions)--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]