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 . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another BLP portal with negative information. Not that I want to defend the guy, but the Intro refers to charges of which he was acquitted, the Selected Images include 4 images, one (the one that came up for me) was his booking photo, another was of the Chicago El; the In the News section refers to his recent indictment for child rape. None of this referenced in the portal (although it is referenced in the main article). This is a new portal so it's linked from our Community Portal. In addition, it is not a broad enough topic to justify a portal (I think very few individuals will merit a portal under POG... Like maybe Muhammed, Jesus, John Lennon, Jimbo...). Leviv ich 05:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete single person so too narrow, not enough editors to watch the page and update it, no refs on a BLP. Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the BLP issue. I've cut the no of paragraphs to 3 to bypass the issue while we debate. The news has links to news stories. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the portal format is not suitable for discussing sensitive BLP content because they don't typically include references and they are less likely to be kept up to date than an article. The lead now doesn't mention the controversies surrounding him at all, which is BLP compliant but which also isn't a good way of covering the issue. I'm also not sure that the subject is sufficiently high profile to justify a portal, given that the portal contents are also summarised in Template:R. Kelly. Hut 8.5 11:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLPs do not deserve portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Hut8.5 and Espresso Addict have said, wrong format for sensitive BLP subjects. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep – Meets WP:POG.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Single subject not significant enough for a Portal.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 28 March 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.