Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human spaceflight

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. MER-C 16:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Human spaceflight

Delete Multi-page portal that is completely covered by Portal:Spaceflight, contrary to the WP:POG guideline's statement that a portal should not be redundant to another portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nomination Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Portal:Spaceflight. The subpages of this portal can easily be merged to the Portal:Spaceflight portal's subpages, serving to improve the suggested merge target by expanding it's content and scope. This would be vastly superior to simply deleting all of the work that has gone into this portal. While there is some overlap, this portal does have content that is not in the Spaceflight portal. For example, content at Portal:Human spaceflight/Selected article that is not used in the Spaceflight portal can be merged to Portal:Spaceflight/Selected article with ease. This can likewise occur with the other subpages. This would be a functional WP:ATD-M that would improve the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This portal appears to have been created as a clone of Portal:Spaceflight. I don't know why portals should be cloned. Clone portals are not as bad as zombie portals. Clones are alive, while zombies are only undead. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See note below about origins. Yes, started from there, but with specialization in mind. Shenme (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note and Delete - It doesn't seem that either portal is very well maintained. Ugly, deadish portals don't do anyone much good. That said, looking at pageview stastics, virtually no one goes to "Manned" spaceflight. --Neopeius (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing "completely covered" nor "easily ... Portal:Spaceflight portal's subpages". Someone had the motivation to cover specifically human spaceflight (2009) and started specializing from Portal:Spaceflight. And the comment from then - "" - has remained in the page. No subterfuge here. But from Portal:Spaceflight I'm not seeing aught but a link to article human spaceflight. Not much overlap apparent to me.

Initially I reflexively agreed 'merge', but then I looked at both pages. Look at Portal:Spaceflight and imagine the changes required to really merge the full topic's range. Rather jarring. Satisfying the full topic "human spaceflight" would require significantly warping Portal:Spaceflight. I can't see 'easy'.

The stated redundancy within portal space is not shown in the nomination. If you want nominate based on, say, the portal needlessly duplicating an article, go ahead. But this really looks to me like a valid specialization of topic. Shenme (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen - Old portal, 107 subpages, created 2009-05-29 12:16:51 by User:SalopianJames. In the 2 lines nomination, User:UnitedStatesian should have put Multi-page portal that is completely covered by Portal:Spaceflight in bold, for a better readability. In any case, Portal:Spaceflight/Selected article and Portal:Spaceflight/Selected biography are speaking for themselves the merge is already done. Useless fork, to be deleted: Portal:Human spaceflight. Pldx1 (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 30 April 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.