Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

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. Judging by the discussion, it seems like the various "procedural keeps" are primarily motivated by whether Portal:Los Angeles should be considered; it has been struck and thus no longer within scope of this MFD. The remaining arguments are mostly supportive of deleting the other portals, so deletion is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles[edit]

Four more LA neighbourhood level portals. We already have Portal:Greater Los Angeles which is the scope that the WikiProject California correctly decided was appropriate for the Los Angeles portal (see history link on the LA portal above). TTH overrode that group decision to create a portal for the "city proper". Then he made numerous portals for individual neighborhoods within the city proper (the first four here, a batch BHG nominated, and several more I placed in a previous nomination). These are not supported by WikiProject Califonia, who wanted correctly to broaden the scope of the portal to cover the whole metro area. Focusing on one broad scope portal is far better then a bunch of micro portals. The LA subpages are housekeeping since they were abandoned unused in 2010 and were not used in TTH's reboot. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Procedural Keep - I am unhappily arguing against deletion of these portals because the history of this nomination is tainted by User:Legacypac by (1) altering User:BrownHairedGirl's original nomination against her careful definition; (2) User:Legacypac apparently trying to suppress a caution from an admin about disruptive editing. We don't need these portals, but we even less need Legacypac's scorched-earth campaign against the portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was super clear there when and how I added these 4 to the larger nomination. Clearly these are not needed any more than the ones BHG nominated. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, I am sad to see that you seem to have completely ignored the explanation I wrote about adding those pages to the other XFD was disruptive. And even sadder to see that you deleted it without archiving it[1], leaving an edit summary which makes it very clear that you still don't get the problem: go target the real problem makers that created this mess and throw up roadblocks to cleanup.

I agree entirely that a huge cleanup is needed. But that cleanup is impeded by recklessly mangling MfD nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This is an apples-and-oranges situation. 4 extant portals jumbled in with a housekeeping issue makes for a fractured discussion. Except that it's not entirely a housekeeping issue, because @Legacypac did not disclose they they unilaterally redirected Portal:Los Angeles. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Archive_5#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego was mostly 2 editors, with 3 others making occasional contribs, and it was 9 years ago. So that needs separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now BHG don't lie. Yes I restored the long standing redirect because one portal is clearly an overlap with the other. Contrary to your hostile statement about lack of disclosure, I specifically said "but not the main page that I restored to a redirect" and also pointed to the history of Portal LA link where you can clearly see my editorial action. I'm not seeking to delete the redirect and if it makes you feel better I can tag all the old Subpages G8 which they obviously are. Now can we keep this discussion on topic and less of a whining about me? Taking a discussion off the rails by complaining I've made a mess of another discussion is ironic. Robert started the WP:X3 discussion that was supervoted down, so he already expressed that these should be deleted without debating them individually. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-24T02:42:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:07:30Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T14:11:15Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Downtown Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-24T03:18:46Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:South Los Angeles

Pldx1 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as it seems the portal with the housekeeping issue, Portal:Los Angeles, has been removed from the nomination. Looking at the four remaining portals, they seem to just be auto navbox portals, and I don't think individual areas of Los Angeles are broad enough topics to need a portal to help navigate. Meszzy² (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once a nomination is corrupted, even if by the enthusiasm of its supporter, it should be started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Robert McClenon. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: again, a case where ignore all rules should really be applied. I know many feel process is important, but at the end of the day these are going to get deleted anyway, whether it's as a result of this discussion or as a result of a renomination which is more aligned with process because they all don't meet the portal inclusion guideline. SITH (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't see that the nominator's behavior taints the nomination in any way that makes it impossible for us to reach a reasonable decision about the usefulness of these portals. Portals about small cities and individual neighborhoods are too narrow. --RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. I'm not going to speak to the merits of each nominated portal, but a formal process needs to follow agreed rules. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 3 May 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.