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: keep . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A single artist, unless someone like Shakespeare, is insufficient scope to justify a portal. This page does little for the reader that the single article Juanes does not do : Noyster (talk), 15:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant to the artist page. We need some guidelines around what justifies a portal amd this does not. Legacypac (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Legacypac: To clarify, those guidelines will say something like more than 45 pages in the topic is needed for a portal? What do you personally think the general threshold would be? JLJ001 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A threshhold number of pages could be part of it. Clearly Portals should be on a broad enough topic that they offer some value beyond just visiting the cooresponding mainspace page would offer. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I for one would like to see some guidelines on this, what I have seen so far is very vague. JLJ001 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WT:WikiProject Portals has been notified of this discussion. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Juanes. No need to obfuscate the page history. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be close to getting the prize for most implausible redirect, either keep it or don't, you can't go filling the portal space with useless relics just because you want the page history. JLJ001 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JLJ001: I entirely disagree. See WP:CHEAP. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. it's the same title, so why is someone more likely to type "portal:" first? it's implausible. And these "cheap" pages do mess up the search results, lists, counts, etc. JLJ001 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it existed for 6 years and previous visitors may return to it. Hence, it is plausible. Lists and counts, as they are not generally viewed by readers (while portals are), are of little concern. Enlarging the search engine is only a problem when a redirect makes it "unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine," which this would not. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that entire time it's had less than 1000 pageviews. The main article got a thousand times that. JLJ001 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any harm but do see quite a bit of benefit in converting this to a redirect. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. I will explain. Recently someone had a bright idea to delete the entire Portal space, part of the conditions of it being kept was that some effort was made to tidy it up. Many people have joined to help with this. This exercise includes reducing the number of less relevant base portals (like this one), and also reducing the number of subpages. I have it on good authority that all unused portal pages should be deleted rather than being made into redirects, because there are no links to them, and they only show in search when people are trying to find portals. However when people are trying to find portals, the fact there are 150,000 pages for only 1485 portals means it's hard/impossible to use Wikipedia's search to find them. To keep the page history of this page would require keeping the portal and all 15 of it's subpages, because that's how portal code works. How is keeping these pages helpful? How is maintaining this as a redirect helping anyone? It won't be seen by or help readers, and it makes it harder for newer portal maintainers (like me) to navigate the system, which is way to complicated as it is. JLJ001 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JLJ001:"I have it on good authority that all unused portal pages should be deleted rather than being made into redirects, because there are no links to them, and they only show in search when people are trying to find portals." Point me to the formal community discussion that was assessed to have this notion as its consensus and I'll withdraw my !vote of redirection. That aside, I'd have no problem with, if not prefer, substing all the subpages to the main page (then deleting them) and maintaining only one redirect (with all the history intact) instead of many. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance most of what I am saying is based on various posts by The Transhumanist, so if you want to find out more about unused portal pages you could ask him. As far as your idea of consolidating the subpages is concerned, that seems a good idea, and would deal with most of my concerns, but I have never used the substing tool so can't really comment further. JLJ001 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Neutral per The Transhumanist and but per JLJ001, do not redirect. When people click on a Portal: link, they expect to see a portal. If they are taken to an article instead, they are left baffled. When people type that to a portal template, they think they've accomplished creating a valid link to a portal, not a misplaced See also link to an article. We don't redirect deleted Files: to articles either. Redirecting this to the article would be to miss the mark on the principle of least astonishment by miles. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the portal has been expanded to present 46 articles and several pictures pertaining to Juanes – @Legacypac, Godsy, JLJ001, and Finnusertop: this portal, which was a stub begging to be completed, improves navigation of its topic, while providing "topic tasters" to draw the reader deeper into the subject. It serves its purposes well. Noyster, I respectfully request that you withdraw the nomination, as the portal is now fully functional with lots of automatically rotating content. It now has more content than most portals. Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   12:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted that this page is now on its way to regular portal layout. However, in my view the debate over whether there should be portals of such limited scope should still have an airing: Noyster (talk), 12:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The Transhumanist. JLJ001 (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Still Delete as "more content than most portals" is not saying much at all. The small band of portal enthusiasts need to recognize that many Wikipedians want all Portals eliminated. It would be far more credable to let a few of the most useless get deleted instead of fighting for every portal like its sacred. Legacypac (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even more Wikipedians want them retained, by a margin of 2 to 1. I change my position to Strong Keep. Before this discussion, the portal was useful, and now it is even more so. You suggested above that 45 articles would be sufficient for scope. This portal now presents 46 articles plus pictures. We get that you don't like portals. We also get that arguments for deletions are based on guidelines and policies, of which you have posed none.    — The Transhumanist   06:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wouldn't make this portal and I'm not particularly enthusiastic about the subject matter... but apparently there are enough editors who are willing to take it on and appear to not only have done a good job but have broadened the content and reach of Wikipedia. I believe that makes Wikipedia better, so there it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never even heard of the guy until I worked on this portal. But there's over 46 articles about him and his work. That's impressive.    — The Transhumanist   06:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has a whole stack of awards, and other relevant musicians do have portals. JLJ001 (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The portal appears to have been expanded to the point that it now serves some purpose aside from being a redundant content fork. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A topic with 40-odd Wikipedia articles seems notable enough to have its own portal. Now that the portal has been constructed, I see no reason it should be deleted. Bnng (talk) 21:49, 25 May 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.