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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant subpages of the Cornwall portal[edit]

I have merged all the subpages of the Cornwall portal with the portal itself. I have then used parser and module functions to automate it in line with the new portal guidelines. This has left 69 pages obsolete. JLJ001 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Update: This Cornwall portal was simply a obscure portal to start on. I will do similar work to other portals, with the full intention of renovating all the Portals in the UK. Each portal will have an average of 50 pages left redundant, so as there is about 100 portals, I expect there will be a minimum 5000 pages just like these eventually. JLJ001 (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – for maintenance of the namespace. These subpages are now nothing but content forks. Not just with the portal—the article excerpts are old versions of the text they were taken from (articles). Turning these into redirects (as merges generally are) would be useless, because as portal subpages, nothing links to them (all the links go to the portal base page). And now that they are dead pages, they are misleading. Use of Special:All pages makes it look like Portal:Cornwall is comprised of more pages than it actually is. Editors trying to improve Portal:Cornwall might work on these by mistake, and be left wondering why the portal didn't change due to their edits.    — The Transhumanist   10:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be eliminating redundancy and making Wikipedia better without removing any significant content. Good job.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per The Transhumanist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete server space, my precious! Zarasophos (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zarasophos: For the record, deleting pages doesn't actually save server space. They aren't actually deleted, because admins can still view them; they're just hidden from us normal folk. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding the following pages from the Luton portal. JLJ001 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved up with the others. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G6 Housekeeping. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'll be sure to let everyone know to tag them db G6 from now on.    — The Transhumanist   18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note that Twinkle has a D-batch function that is designed to delete large batches of pages like this at once. Individual tagging and actioning (as appears to be going on now) might not be the most efficient way, especially if this expands to thousands of pages Tazerdadog (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a set of similar pages from LDS related portals, thanks to Broter's hard work in renovating them. JLJ001 (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @JLJ001: It looks like RHaworth has gone ahead and deleted a large number of these pages because they are unused. In the future, I would support you being able to nominate any subpages you deprecate for speedy deletion under G6 citing this MfD as the rationale. Clearly this is considered to be uncontroversial routine maintenance. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Using CSD G6 does seem to be saving a whole lot of hassle. JLJ001 (talk) 15:56, 24 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.