Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Early human migrations

:{{pagelinks|Portal:Early human migrations}}

::{{grey|(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)}} — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete We were promised these automatically created portals would not need any manual maintenance, yet now this one has a Lua error right in the middle. If no one is going to make sure these work, what is the point? Also, 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), and this one is not, so is contrary to the guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• {{fixed}} The section with the problem is displaying nicely now. Thank you for the heads up.    — The Transhumanist   21:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – Nobody promised that. Portals are a lot easier to maintain than they used to be. A single editor could maintain perhaps a handful of manual portals. Now, that number is in the thousands. My method of maintenance has been to fix any portal reported to me, which I've done, easily, in most cases; for the harder cases, we have a team of programmers to track down glitches and fix them. Debugging is to be expected in any automated system. We are working on automatic error reporting methods at the portals project, so, hopefully, these will address your concern (for which MfD really isn't the place to address it). It's fixed now. Thank you for the heads up, though it would have been more appropriate on my talk page, or at WT:WPPORT. {{;)}} Cheers.    — The Transhumanist   21:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this topic is appropriately covered in mainspace. We don't need a portal that gives part of the article lead. Without any guidence on what justifies the creation or retention of a portal we can also delete them just because someone else finds them unhelpful. Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

:: That's an argument against portals in general, and not a valid reason for deletion at MfD, as this portal breaks no policy.    — The Transhumanist   21:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

:::No policy supports the mass creation of portals with a dubious need for them. My opinion that this portal is not needed is as valid as your opinion that is needed. If Portals are a more a navigation aid than like an article then similar logic as is applied to redirects applies to them. At RfD we delete redirects that are not judged needed or helpful. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

:::: The guideline supports the creation of portals. It doesn't impose a limit.    — The Transhumanist   12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - This is the only portal brought here for a deletion discussion that I find interesting, but there are far too many of these stupid portals being created. If TTH would slow down and create one portal a week, there might be a case to keep this one. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep just because the editor who created a portal which is considered useful created many others does not mean that they can just then label it for deletion. Every portal needs to be evaluated separately. Also issue brought by nom is fixed and the portal has 20 articles to choose from, which is what I would want a portal to have before I create it. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

::I reviewed some of "related" articles and found a few are not related to this topic unless you stretch related pretty far. For example this article is about monkeys - Hominini - not early human migration. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support the efforts to create nice auto-portals, but I am not finding even this one to be superior reading or navigation than the article Early human migrations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete this automated portal generation script doesn't give very useful output. This portal doesn't meaningfully expand on Early human migrations: the lead is from that article (except it is cut off halfway through describing the subject matter), the images and captions are all grabbed from that article, and the selected articles are all from Template:Early human migrations, which is displayed at the bottom of that article. Some of the articles linked are rather tenuous. The remainder of the portal is just boilerplace and the topic is too narrow to allow much expansion. Hut 8.5 19:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. This is auto-generated lump of portalspam is just an inferior version of the main article Early human migrations and Template:Early human migrations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, portalspam indeed. Fram (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

: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.