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: no consensus. Seems like there is some disagreement here on whether the topic is too narrow for the pertinent WP:POG guideline and whether another MFD can be cited as precedent. I am not seeing any clear cut consensus in either direction, other than the headcount which leans towards keep. This borders between "no consensus" and "keep", I'll play it as "no consensus" as it's not a particularly strong consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Amiga[edit]

(convenience link: subject article Amiga)

(Wikipedia:WikiProject Amiga courtesy talkpage notified)

Delete Portal covering a single product that I reverted from TTH's automated version to the original multi-subpage version having many, many subpages. The logic from the admin's closing statement in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé is operative here: "the existence of lots of articles about a narrow topic does not make it a broad topic, it makes it a comprehensively covered narrow topic." and therefore this one is also contrary to the breadth-of-subject area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. There are 276 pages in scope, but none are FA and only one is GA, so fails the quality-of-content requirement of WP:POG. WikiProject is defunct. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amiga is a series of computers and video game consoles, not a single product. 276 pages is more than enough to satisfy POG. As of portal maintenance (portal about undead computing platform doesn´t need frequent updates anyway), I hereby proclaim I will take this task myself. Pavlor (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much though I'd like to believe all admins are infallible, one admin's close of an MfD on a not particularly closely related topic does not even begin to establish policy. Other than >=20 non-stubs, there is no quality of content requirement of which I'm aware. There are 41 selected articles, 18 bios, and 50 pictures, plus a few DYKs. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ETA. And if you correctly note that a Wikiproject is defunct, you could also as a courtesy notify the parent Wikiproject, which is also associated on the portal talk page, and is not defunct. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there is such a requirement, in WP:POG: portals "should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section." (emphasis added) UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines have been edited round and round till they make my head spin. The bit I'm looking at states:

"For the Selected article, Selected biography or other Selected content items, find a good number^[1] of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal. Each of these articles should be:

of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively;
describing a major topic or person notable within the portal topic area;
have no tags displayed denoting clean-up, copyright violation, controversy or similar;
not marked as a stub.

^ Good number means a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles." Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This is not as narrow a topic as a single entertainer, and it has an offer to maintain it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 6 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.