Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King

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) 05:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Burger King edit

A hyper specific portal recently created that adds nothing to our existing small cluser of articles on the company. These portals give just enough basic info from the ledes to not really help the reader but they create links on pages to draw the reader into Portal land. There appear to be no guidelines on what makes a topic "notable" or suitable for a portal and one user is running fast and furious to create these Portals at the rate of over 250 per month. Legacypac (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related open Village Pump discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are quite a few articles on or related to Burger King, and this portal is a convenient navigation tool for surveying them. You can click through their leads until you come to one that you want to read in more depth – exactly what the slideshows were designed for: a browsing aid. Notability pertains to subjects, not to pages about them, and Burger King is notable. Legacypac is confusing notability with scope, and scope is covered in the Portals guideline. This portal's subject far exceeds the scope required for a portal. Note that Legacypac is using this page as a venue to object to portals in general, which is not the purpose of MfD, and violates WP:FORUMSHOP. He's already stated his case against portals in the thread link he provide above. He hasn't provided any valid reasons for deletion, as the portal does not violate any Wikipedia rule, and follows all portal guidelines. — The Transhumanist 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user has created over ~~500 portals in two months~~ 3,500 portals in 6 months with no indication of slowing down and every indication of trying to create a portal for topics like all 723 districts of India. Please stop and consider there are many users who don't think we need these portals. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have nominated one of them instead?--Auric talk 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking how to do a bundled nomination. Legacypac (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent, portals with more than around 20 selected articles don't get deleted here. Template:Burger King has plenty articles which would be difficult to find on the article, as they may only be one wikilink. The selected articles slideshow allows easy viewing of the leads of articles that may not be seen on the article or not seen by mobile viewers (as navboxes are hidden on mobile). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is one company and it does not need a portal. You can't argue this portal is not agsinst rules that don't exist while also arguing for the last year we can't delete portals because you have not drafted guidelines yet. If anyone can create new portals on any topic without needing to meet a "notability" or "suitability" guideline, just because they think it fun to create hundreds of portals, than anyone else should be able to delete hundreds of portals as useless. Some Portal MfDs will create some precident and aid in crafting a suitability guideline. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines says "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject", which I take to mean a subject-matter WikiProject (i.e., not WP:WikiProject Portals). There is no involvement with any editors who are knowledgeable about or experienced in the general subject matter, who are presumably best positioned to opine on whether this has any value to the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King is already linked to Portals on Food, Drink, and Companies. Therefore it falls outside the the Portal Project's idea that a Portal should have 20 pages minimum under it. We don't need either hyperspecific portals or hugely broad portals like Food and Drink. Seriously what human wants to explore the huge topic of food via a portal? Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But, as noted at Village pump, we may need a special speedy-delete for these portals, like Neely redirects. Delete this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially a different way to look at Template:Burger King, but without the explanation why the articles are connected to Burger King (click through the "selected general articles" to find Alex Bowman or Army and Air Force Exchange Service). An excellent example to show that human-generated portals are superior to the modern "fully automated" ones. —Kusma (t·c) 09:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well deep in the article we find "Additionally, the Exchange has nearly 1,750 quick-serve restaurants such as Portal:Subway, Burger King, Portal:Popeyes Chicken, Portal:Taco Bell, Portal:Pizza Hut, Portal:Charley's Grilled Subs and Portal:Starbucks as well as over 3,600 concession operations". Since Starbucks and BK already have new portals now I expect the plan is to create portals for all fast food chains listed and include the Exchange article in all of them for random display, confusing anyone who stumbles into these portals. Legacypac (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal:Burger King it makes no sense to delete this portal.Catfurball (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Army and Air Force Exchange Service has been in the navbox since 2008. It doesn't belong in there at all (or if it does belong there, so do any number of governmental entities that host multiple Burger King outlets (Massachusetts Turnpike is one such)). The fundamental problem here is that the navbox used to build the portal is poorly maintained. If you're going to build a portal, maybe take a minute to see if you can make any improvements to the page you're using to seed the portal?? A broader problem is that Wikipedia is full of poorly maintained nav cruft dating back to it's earlier days; and many of TTH's portals are just adding another layer of nav cruft. Meanwhile, the world increasingly sees Wikipedia through it's mobile view which makes the nav cruft invisible. Plantdrew (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem with the "no maintenance" portals -- they just move the maintenance burden from portals to navboxes / articles / categories, while increasing the impact that maintenance problems in navboxes / articles / categories have. —Kusma (t·c) 09:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it and fixed some other things. Thanks for pointing that out.--Auric talk 11:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As any other of this Neelix-like series. More details were given at the Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal:E_(mathematical_constant) page. 15:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldx1 (talk • contribs)
IAR Delete. Oh my gosh, I can't believe this exists. Delete it, salt it, burn it... I don't care! This is so gosh awful. Under "Selected images" the Burger King Logo appears A second time!! What purpose could this serve? Who asked for this? Why.. just WHY?! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough content for a useful portal, and time spent maintaining this (and templates/categories the portal depends on) would likely be better off spent improving other content. feminist (talk) 11:36, 12 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.