Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Diversity of fish

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: redirect to Portal:Fish. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Diversity of fish[edit]

Portal:Fish does the same job much better. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Portal:Fish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portal:Fish, although I wouldn't mind deleting either. It's easily orphaned and an unlikely search term. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portal:Fish. Duplicate. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Finnusertop that it's an unlikely search term. Waggers TALK 11:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Portal:Fish and Portal:Diversity of fish do appear to share the same topic. Portal:Diversity of fish has that title because for reasons not obvious to me, the navbox Template:Fish seems to be about a singer. The older Portal:Fish is somewhat out of date and is not automatically updating. so I think the title of Portal:Fish should be retained, and those parts of the content that can be salvaged and converted to the new system be merged into the structure of Portal:Diversity of fish, which would solve most of the immediate problems. Fortunately the singer's actual navbox page is Template:Fish navbox, redirected from Template:Fish, so Template:Diversity of fish can be renamed Template:Fish if that will help – new portal structure is often based on the navbox and uses its title – so all a bit of a mess really, but salvageable. The new template was created by The Transhumanist, so maybe he can throw some light into the darkness.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per the consensus over at some Wikispace which I forgot where consensus was to keep these - I personally disagree with it but hey ho, If you want portals deleted then it might be worth reopening another RFC on it but as it stands keep pretty much per the rfc and above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. –Davey2010^Talk 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold until we have consensus on the guidelines currently being discussed. Certes (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portal:Fish. Bermicourt (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why waste time with a redirect for something duplicative and useless when deletion is cheap? This is yet another portal that has been recently created in spite of the lack of consensus in the community that we need portals at all, let alone that we need this portal. There is no evidence that this portal will actually be maintained, when the originator is simply creating a large number of unrelated portals, possibly because creating portals is fun. Rather than keeping yet another portal until we can agree on guidelines, we should delete new portals that are not clearly needed until we can agree on guidelines. The category associated with this portal is empty. This implies that this portal is not likely to be properly maintained in the future either.

Discussion on portal creation criteria[edit]

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. You are invited to participate in the ongoing discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Time for some portal creation criteria?. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 16:48, 26 September 2018 (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.