Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Incest

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) 20:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Incest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Poor choice of portal topic that can't do the topic justice like a our widely vetted article. Many of the featured articles are specific cases of incest. Motherfucker, which arguably is not really an incest topic) is included. Another is "This is a list of prominent individuals who have been romantically or maritally coupled with a cousin. Read more...". If you just read Incest you will see the images in the portal so the images are truly redundant. Not informative, a poor repackaging of content without human curation. Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is too narrow in scope, but it doesn't really fit with a broader topic like Portal:Sexuality and I'm not sure a portal about human relationships would be viable but if it is it would be an awkward fit with that too. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If an outward-facing portal is appropriate for this topic, it should be developed and maintained with the utmost care and sensitivity. There is no evidence that that has been done, because portals were being created recklessly. (Same comment and rationale as for zoophilia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 30 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.