Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Stonehenge

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: speedy delete. WP:G7 per request of the creator[1] @Gazamp. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Portal:Stonehenge

Portal:Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Important but narrow topic. Single-page portal built from an embedded list; no previous version. Navigation would be better aided by a navbox.

Stonehenge is a prehistoric monument in England. It is a Level-3 vital article, but Wikipedia's coverage of it is concentrated in a few dozen articles.

For a topic of this scope, a navbox provides better navigation because the navbox displays all the links simulataneously, and is transcluded on every page in the set. So I have created one: Template:Stonehenge.

The 41-link navbox includes all the articles listed in the portal:

1. Laser scanning at Stonehenge
2. Stonehenge Archer
3. Stonehenge Free Festival
4. Stonehenge Landscape
5. Stonehenge Riverside Project
6. Stonehenge in its landscape
7. Stonehenge replicas and derivatives
8. Stonehenge road tunnel
9. Theories about Stonehenge
10. Excavations at Stonehenge#Early research
11. Cultural depictions of Stonehenge
12. Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge
13. Altar Stone (Stonehenge)
14. Stonehenge road tunnel

This portal was created in good faith, and was probably not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK when created. However, now that the navbox exists, the portal is redundant to the navbox and also to the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the absence or presence of a new nav box is unimportant to this deletion discussion. The fact is the existing article covers the topic and links directly or indirectly to all related articles. There is no need for a portal on this quite narrow topic. It is a big tourist draw, and an interesting site to visit but an automated (or any) portal is a fairly useless way to introduce what in the end is just a few hundred acres if you include all the related sites in the area. The article gives a much better into than the portal can. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G7 in favour of the new nav-box. Thanks again BrownHairedGirl. Gazamp (talk) 17:01, 22 April 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.