Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:02, 3 May 2019

Skip to: Table of contents / current discussions / old business (bottom). Purge this page

Shortcut

WP:MFD

Please do not nominate your user page (or subpages of it) for deletion here. Instead, add {{db-userreq}} at the top of any such page you no longer wish to keep; an administrator will then delete the page. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more information.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS: (in the unlikely event it ever contains a page that is not a redirect or one of the 5 disambiguation pages) and the various Talk: namespaces
Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Duplications in draftspace?	Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding `{{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~` to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status\|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6\|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Shortcut

WP:MFDHOWTO

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.

Edit PageName:

Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion:

{{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}}

or

{{mfd|GroupName}}
if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page.

If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages.

Please include in the edit summary the phrase
Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion.
Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit.
Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone.
Save the page

II.

Create its MfD subpage.

The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry"

Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page.
Insert this text:

{{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically.

Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate.
Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Save the page.

III.

Add a line to MfD.

Follow this edit link and at the top of the list add a line:

{{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}}
Put the page's name in place of "PageName".

Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like
Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion.
Save the page.
If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add

{{priorxfd|PageName}}
in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as
Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add
{{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~
to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as
Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]
replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	5	8	13
TfD	1	5	6
MfD	0	0	41
FfD	1	2	3
RfD	0	58	58
AfD	0	1	1

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

May 3, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:George200567

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:George200567

Non notable kid youtuber, incorrectly hosted on a user page. Previously abandoned and G13'ed at Draft:Alfie Allison. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a fake article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:FAKEARTICLE. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Linkfarm to youtube. Youtube is not a reliable source, do not build content based on YouTube sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OMG!!! YTP maker with 600 SUBS!! That's soooooooooooooooooooooo notable!!!!!1 —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jftsang/Books/Biographies of fluid dynamicists

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: Speedy close. @Jftsang: you don't need to come here to ask to ask for permission to redirect a page in your own user space, you can just do it. If you want it to be deleted then tag it with {{db-u1}} and an admin will come and delete it for you. Hut 8.5 18:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jftsang/Books/Biographies of fluid dynamicists

duplicate jftsang 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to User:Jftsang/Books/Biographies of Fluid Dynamicists instead of deleting

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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocked

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocked and Mediawiki:Abusefilter-degrouped

Per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Blocks, seems as though these pages were never utilized and may never be utilized due to edit filters not blocking editors and/or removing their user access levels. Steel1943 (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't like the concept of an edit filter that blocks an editor. It seems too much like an autopilot feature that decides that the airplane is stalled and pulls down the nose. Normally it saves lives that would have been saved by the pilot anyway. Occasionally, it causes controlled flight into terrain. If the filters were not used, we don't need them and they won't require any unblock tickets. If the filters were used, they are dangerous. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 3 May 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.

May 2, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:FLAG-/templates

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) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FLAG-/templates and friends

All of these essays are so outdated and unnecessary that there is not even a reason to mark them as "historical". All of these pages are essentially expanded documentation pages for the templates {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}}, making their existence at the present time akin to a WP:G8 violation due to their dependent pages no longer existing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with silver bullets. These are zombie project files, because they were moved from template space into project space in order to kill them once. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy all for User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome. Deletion rationale applies to projectspace ok, but not userspace. Old gnome work. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gshaddix/The Consitution of the United states

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) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gshaddix/The Consitution of the United states

Abandoned user space pages mostly consisting of nonsense created by a user who was banned by arbcom for some reason (No clear reason why) should be deleted as abandoned. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The block was probably actually by an individual arbitrator acting as CheckUser or as Oversighter. OS blocks are rare, for posting material that had to be suppressed (e.g., death threats, libel). CU blocks are relatively common and are for sockpuppetry. Originator was probably blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orphaned user page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then again, it might have been an OS block. Content on the talk page has been suppressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added two more pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gangs

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) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Gangs

(Convenience link: subject article Gang)

Delete Narrow subject portal (failing the WP:POG guideline on that count) that was abandoned shortly after the page, along with a singe example to populate each section, was created. There are now probably more than 11 >stub articles related to gangs, but no way to know from this portal, since the portal's article importance/quality grid has not been updated in a decade. News section pulls all crime and law news from Wikinews. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator says. But have other editors who edited this portal and are still active been notified by courtesy? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just the editor who started it; I don't normally notify everyone in an edit history, under the assumption that interested editors are likely to have the portal on their watchlist. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Abandoned, narrow-scope topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 14 subpages, created 2009-10-03 04:07:18 by User:Zink Dawg. ONE article, ONE picture, Whaow ! . Portal:Gangs. Pldx1 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aquarium fish

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) 22:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Aquarium fish

(Convenience link: subject article Aquarium fish redirects to Lists of aquarium life)

(Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes courtesy talkpage notified)

Delete Narrow subject portal (failing the WP:POG guideline on that count) that has been upgraded so the selected article scrolls through random articles, but the selected fish and selected image are static because each has only one subpage created, so this is the least multi-page of multi-page portals. No "In the news" section, no "Did you know. . ." section, no "On this day" section. And of course redundant to Portal:Fish. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-portal on a narrow topic. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Aquarium fish confirms that there is only one of each item, so this is not a portal, just a static display. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The head article appears to be set as fishkeeping at present, though I see that was The Transhumanist et al.'s doing. The now-deleted original introduction linked to aquarium and fish, as well as fishkeeping, but did not talk about fishkeeping as an industry. I don't think this is a very narrow subject, there's quite a bit in Category:Fishkeeping to incorporate. However I'm not convinced that static portals such as this one are worth preserving. No necessary prejudice to recreating a proper portal on the topic. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to change my mind if Tryptofish desires to update and expand this portal, as opposed to starting afresh at some future time. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Espresso Addict, that's very thoughtful of you. But it's fine with me to go ahead and delete it for now (and there is always the possibility of un-deleting and draftifying it at a later date). It's never been a high priority for me, and I'm unlikely to work on it soon. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another portal created by a banned sockpuppetmaster. Has anyone checked the portal for copyright violations? (Editor was banned primarily for massive copyvio). Other points are valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but I don't want to push the point and will defer to other editors about it. The fact that it was created years ago by Drew Smith is a pretty weak reason to delete it. Aquarium fish and fishkeeping are a topic that easily stands on its own, separately from fish as a whole. WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes is active enough, and it's something I care about personally. That said, I actually don't think that the portal is really needed, at least in the present form, and I take the point that a "true" portal can still be created to replace it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too narrow topic portal, 12 subpages, created 2009-04-27 00:01:58 by User:Drew R. Smith, maintained by User:Tryptofish : Portal:Aquarium fish. Pldx1 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No further explanation needed. Fishnerd (talk) 13:01, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Daman and Diu

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) 22:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Daman and Diu

Abandoned non-portal on a narrow topic.

Daman and Diu is a union territory in India, i.e. not a state. Its area in only 112km², and its 2011 population only 243,000.

Category:Daman and Diu+allSubcats contains only 61 articles. 20 of those are tagged as stubs, and a further 19 are tagged on the talk page as stubs, leaving only 19 non-stubs. Only 5 are explicitly assessed as FA/GA/A/B/C-class. The head article itself Daman and Diu is assessed as start-class, though it's arguably a weak C-class. But there simply isn't enough material here to sustain a portal.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Daman and Diu shows that the current portal has only one Selected article, one Selected biography, Selected picture. There is a refresh button, but no rotation becaus there nothing to rotate to. And that's all: no DYK, no news. Just a slim single-issue magazine.

The portal page and the three main subpages /Selected article/1, /Selected biography/1, and /Selected picture/1 were all created in 2009 when the main portal was was created, and have basically been abandoned since apart from minor formatting changes.

So the current abandoned portal is a waste of readers' time, and there's almost no scope for development. Just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Union territories in India, like territories in the United States and Canada, are sometimes broad areas. This one is not inherently a broad area. Besides, it is an unmaintained portal by an inactive editor and is not in good condition. Delete without prejudice, but recognizing that in view of the small size of the territory, it is very unlikely to be a portal subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. In addition to the issues discussed by the nominator, the head article has an orange-level tag (though I'd agree C-class would be fair). No prejudice to recreation if/when the encyclopedia's coverage improves substantially. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 12 subpages, created 2009-04-24 22:01:21 by User:Wiki User 68. Provides nothing. Portal:Daman and Diu. Pldx1 (talk) 09:47, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Casinoplanet/Mobile gambling developments

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) 22:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casinoplanet/Mobile gambling developments

Pretty clearly advertising and very poorly written; also stale. Not notable enough to be an article. Remagoxer (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's been abandoned for eight years by an inactive author, and has only been around for eight years because it wasn't submitted for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blank only. Not pretty clearly advertising. “Poor writing” is absolutely not a reason to delete in userspace. Perfectly reasonable userspace drafting. Has sources, is a reasonable topic. Notions of “submitted for review” are irrelevant of off-track. It old, so blanking is appropriate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cashierno9/Cashier No. 9

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: deleted by Reaper Eternal: Abandoned draft — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cashierno9/Cashier No. 9

Stale draft, last non bot edit was 7 years ago. Also, I suspect a SPA (see the account name of the creator). Remagoxer (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Abandoned promotional draft, eight years old, by inactive account. Only around for eight years because not submitted for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion, a band, no sources. Tagging G11 & U5. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Life in General/Userboxes/Inter-racial

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) 22:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Life in General/Userboxes/Inter-racial

Why do we even have this? We're not a dating service. Moreover, this is listed under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Sexuality#Fetishism, along with foot fetishist userboxes. More than half of the transclusions are "This user is a white guy who prefers (insert minority) girls". Minority fetishizations are particularly gross and insulting. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 06:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty cringey and oversharing.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't especially like fill-in-the-blank anyway, let alone fill-in-the-characteristic (which might be anything, not necessarily a race, and could be innocuous or weird). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless notifying all users who transclude it. It may be dubious, but it is not offensive, and the case for restarting userbox wars is not here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally worthless userbox.Catfurball (talk) 21:02, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amusement parks

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: keep. Seems like reasoned argument has been offered that this meets WP:POG. I see that some people said they consider the non-automated version better and someone has restored the non-automated version; further discussion if needed can occur on the talk page Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Amusement parks

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Built off Template:Amusement parks and adds nothing to the head article. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Heritage portal created by inactive user. As Legacypac says, adds nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 68 subpages, created 2007-09-01 21:50:33 by User:Seaserpent85. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Amusement parks. Pldx1 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert to this pre-automated version – Meets WP:POG in my view, in part per the plethora of content available about the topic. See the categories below for examples. Lots of content available at Commons too, which can be used to expand the portal. The pre-automated version also provides some additional content outside of what's in the article, and can be expanded to cover even more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 1, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chamupa Unlimited

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Chamupa Unlimited

Multiple rejections by multiple AFC reviewers without improvement. Still reads like a vanity page with no sourcing to any reliable and notable news sources. Time to set this fuse for WP:TNT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note article was CSD A7'ed from mainspace back in February 2019. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the same article has previously been created under different guises, such as Draft:Chamupa Unlimited (EDM DJ/Music Producer). Whilst these have been created/edited by different users based on the edit history (i.e. only editing the one subject) it is most likely they are just one single editor. Dan arndt (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Originator stripped off Reject tag to resubmit after Rejection rather than either leaving it alone or discussing. If the originator tries to bypass Rejection, the only options are MFD or a block or both. An SPI and sodium hypochlorite may be in order. Sodium chloride may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, a diff for “Originator stripped off Reject tag to resubmit after Rejection“ would be appreciated, as this is a good reason to delete, as opposed to the nomination which is weak.

Delete, assuming RMC is correct. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Chamupa_Unlimited&type=revision&diff=895035764&oldid=894910166&diffmode=source . Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I prefer this diff which shows that he also removed the youtube source. If he didn’t do that, then it would be a near auto-delete. As he did follow the advice, removing the advice while following the advice, he deserves a thank you respect, and my !vote is Sorry, but delete, it is hopeless, all the sources are not good enough. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At least one more version has been added to the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please add any more drafts to this MFD. Please add any more accounts to the SPI, which is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World Of EDM DJ Maneger. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CU51D has updated the article, but also stripped off the MFD, rejection, and COI notices. But now it appears to be even more promotional as he has added notes about how his music is available on various platforms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CU51D attempted to push this directly to the mainspace, so I pushed it back to this MFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CU51D has now attempted several times to remove the MFD and CSD warnings. I have warned him several times. Please bring the Morton's for both here and mainspace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamupa Unlimited AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of AFD is speedy delete for G11 and now it's been salted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 8 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania

This one was sad to nominate because I can see at one point someone put a lot of work into it at one time. However, its creator KnoxSGT has not edited here since 2007.
I made it look nice again, but I have no intentions of maintaining this portal of [what I presume to be] KnoxSGT's hometown. I, therefore, propose that this portal and is sub-pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal, etc., etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify, I don't think this meets WP:POG's breath-of-scope requirement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The selected article is The Hershey Company, but Hershey isn't in Lancaster County. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Milton Hershey actually started his first candy company in Lancaster before moving to its present location in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Scanlan (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another abandoned portal that wasn't going to meet breadth-of-scope anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a maintainer/expander comes forward. Not a very wide topic area, but Wikipedia's coverage is relatively rich: Category:Lancaster, Pennsylvania. However there only looks to have been one selected article and one bio, plus 6 pictures and a handful of DYKs. The head article has an orange-level tag in one section (though it might be overkill). Espresso Addict (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2006-12-29 21:30:59 by User:KnoxSGT. Abandoned draft, nothing to save here. Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Pldx1 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's mo doubt it needs an update, but it seems like a decent resource. I know I'm in the minority, but with an update it has definite potential. Scanlan (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scanlan: are you planning on updating it? That is all I ask. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi :@MJL: - Actually, now that you mention it, I will update it, if that's still OK. As you mentioned above, someone put ALOT of work into this and I'd hate to see it lost. I can fix the link rot, swap out some of the older articles, etc. (Nice add with the Fasnacht (doughnut) by the way). I honestly had no idea Portals were even a thing on Wikipedia. It may take a couple days, (I haven't been on Wikipedia in 3 or 4 days), but it will be done. Thanks MJL! Scanlan (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @Scanlan: just a word of caution that Portal:Pennsylvania is in just-as-bad-if-not-worse shape. It might be worth salvaging what remains of this portal and moving the contents to there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with prejudice against re-creation. Lancaster, Pennsylvania is a small city, with a population of only 59,000. In most of Europe, that would classed as a large town, not a city. This is a narrow topic, and while it may be copiously documented, it fails the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Iy got only 11 pageviews per day in Jan–Feb 2019, and it clearly has not attracted maintainers over the last decade.

Ten years after creation, the state of the portal is abysmal. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Lancaster,_Pennsylvania shows:

One selected article: The Hershey Company, founded in Lancaster, but which spent only ten years there before leaving over 110 years ago, and has been located 30 miles away ever since
One selected biography: Charles Demuth, who did at least spend all his life in Lancaster
Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania/Lancaster, Pennsylvania news, with two items, with both external links, which state no year, but the latest was added in 2015
Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania/Did you know with 6 entries, but some of which seem dubious. e.g. The first item is that "With 165 surveillance cameras, Lancaster is the most heavily watched city in the United States." That was added in 2009[1], and may or may not be true now ... but the word "Lancaster" has never been used in the linked article Closed-circuit television (see WikiBlame

So there is nothing here to keep, or even draftify. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pterosaurs

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pterosaurs

Paleontology-related portals at MFD 1 May 2019
Portal	Sub-pages	MFD
P:Pterosaurs	Pterosaurs subpg	MFD — Pterosaurs
P:Brachiopods	Brachiopods subpg	MFD — Brachiopods
P:Trilobites	Trilobites subpg	MFD — Trilobites
P:Ammonoids	Ammonoids subpg	MFD — Ammonoids
P:Pseudosuchians	Pseudosuchians subpg	MFD — Pseudosuchians
P:Trace fossils	Trace fossils subpg	MFD — Trace fossils

Abandoned, flawed mini-portal on a potenially viable topic.

This portal was created in November 2015‎ by Abyssal (talk · contribs), who shortly thereafter created the sub-pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Pterosaurs: 4 selecetd articles, 4 selected pictures, and one page of Portal:Pterosaurs/Science, culture, and economics articles. However, Portal:Pterosaurs/Science, culture, and economics articles is all redlinks, and only one of the four article pages should exist:

Portal:Pterosaurs/Pterosaur articles/1 is just the head article Pterosaur, which is already covered in the introi section, so that's redundant
Portal:Pterosaurs/Pterosaur articles/2 is about Pteranodon, which looks like a good fit
Portal:Pterosaurs/Pterosaur articles/3 is about the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, which is poor fit for this portal: Pterosaurs get only a one-para mention at Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event#Pterosaurs
Portal:Pterosaurs/Pterosaur articles/4 is about the Chicxulub crater, which doesn't even mention the word "Pterosaur".

So if we discount the page of redlinks and the three inappropriate selected articles, we are left with one article and 4 pictures. That's not even a mini-portal; it's a slim single-issue magazine, no use as a showcase or for navigation.

I checked Category:Pterosaurs and its subcats to see how many articles are within scope.

Total = 266
minus pages tagged as Pterosaur stubs‎ = 181
minus Category:Pterosaurs in fiction+subcats = 168
minus articles assessed on talk page as a stub = 154

However, the few start-class articles I checked looked more like stubs, e.g. Caelidracones and Monofenestrata, both of which fail WP:DYKCHECK.

So I excluded all start-class articles, and was left with 66 articles. I then selected only those that were C-class or higher, giving a final set of C-class or better 52 articles. So I think that's probbaly enough material here to make a decent portal ... if someone wanted to do the hard work of creating it and someone was committed to maintaining it. However, we have seen many other abandoned portals which are potentially viable, but which have languished for years without any significant expansion.

In the meantime, readers are being lured to a page called a portal which really isn't a portal. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this is actually a severely degraded version of the WP:GA-class head article Pterosaur.

so I propose that this portal and is sub-pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by putting into the Chicxulub crater as per the analysis of BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wish Abyssal would come and express their view on these, as they are currently active. With 4 articles (tho' I see the caveats in the nomination), 4 images, and a DYK set this is neither acceptable as is nor so useless I don't have qualms about consigning it to extinction. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - automated portal, created by TTH atop an older one, 19 subpages, created 2015-11-19 16:55:50 by User:Abyssal. No apparent maintainer. As analyzed above, TTH was right when nuking the older abandoned portal. Concerning the new version, {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Portal:Pterosaurs | section1=Topics | }} says so much about the lack of care that was the rule during the portalspam period. As usual, without prejudice to a decent portal, rebuild from scratch. Pldx1 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pterosaurs. Pldx1 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pointless DYK subpages of Portal:Paleobotany

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: Userfied. The entire portal, including these pages, was userfied at User:Abyssal's request (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless DYK subpages of Portal:Paleobotany

No links, just a picture, Fossil vegetable Phytolithus Derbyshire.jpg: Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/20 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/23 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/32 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No links, just a difft picture: Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not DYKs, just links to an article "Paleontology in Somewhere", e.g. Paleontology in Iowa: Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Portal:Paleobotany/DYK/7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All these 20 pages are part of the selection of 32 WP:DYK entries used in radom roatation at Portal:Paleobotany (see aso Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Paleobotany). However, none of them is actually a WP:DYK entry, so they should be deleted to remove them from the rotation.

They were all created in December 2015‎, and then abandoned. They appear to have been created as part of a systematised effort by the portal creator Abyssal (talk · contribs) to build a bigger set of DYK entries, but which was never completed. That can easily happen when a project gets interrupted, so Abyssal's good faith effort to improve the portal did nothing wrong ... but we should now clean up by removing these non-DYKs so that they aren't displayed to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these coprolites. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that DYKs for portals have to be DYKs in the Main Page sense, but these have no value at all. Hut 8.5 21:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Abandoned drafts. Pldx1 (talk) 07:20, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brachiopods (2nd nomination)

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) 20:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Brachiopods

Paleontology-related portals at MFD 1 May 2019
Portal	Sub-pages	MFD
P:Pterosaurs	Pterosaurs subpg	MFD — Pterosaurs
P:Brachiopods	Brachiopods subpg	MFD — Brachiopods
P:Trilobites	Trilobites subpg	MFD — Trilobites
P:Ammonoids	Ammonoids subpg	MFD — Ammonoids
P:Pseudosuchians	Pseudosuchians subpg	MFD — Pseudosuchians
P:Trace fossils	Trace fossils subpg	MFD — Trace fossils

Another abandoned non-portal.

This is of a very large number of zoology- or paleontology-related portals created by Abyssal (talk · contribs). The page history and scrutiny of Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Brachiopods shows that it was built in 2015 with 2 Selected pictures, and one DYK page with one entry, but no article sof any type. And there it has remained for 4 years.

Brachiopod is not a very narrow topic, but it's also not that wide.. Category:Brachiopods and its subcats contains 201 articles, but an AWB check finds that only 54 are not currently tagged as stubs, and 38 of those are assessed on the talk page as stubs (in Category:Stub-Class Marine life articles and/or Category:Stub-Class Palaeontology articles) .

The remaining 16 seems to me to be too thin a set to suggest that we have enough content of even start-class quality to make it possible to build a useful portal on the topic ... and even if were possible, this abandoned portal is not it.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Sadly, this one does not enhance the head article Brachiopod, which is rated as a good article,

Abyssal has created some portals which are well-developed (see User:Abyssal/Abyssal portal/Portals started). Others less so: e.g. see the current MFD:Portal:Trace fossils, MFD:Portal:Ammonoids, and MFD:Portal:Pseudosuchians, or the closed MFD:Portal:Prehistory of Oceania and MFD:Portal:Prehistory of North America. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A note to @BrownHairedGirl:, these are all paleontology related, and not archaeology related.--Kev min § 15:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are, @Kevmin. Sorry for my brain lapse, and thanks for making the fix[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was MfD'd by BrownHairedGirl in March 2017 (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brachiopods); I'm not 100% sure why it was kept then. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Abandoned old portal, 12 subpages, created 2015-11-19 16:04:33 by User:Abyssal. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Brachiopods. Pldx1 (talk) 07:16, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Coimbatore

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) 20:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Coimbatore

Abandoned mini-portal on the Indian city of Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu, the 16th largest city in India, with a population of 1.6 million.

It was created in November 2012‎ with one selected article, and one selected picture. As can be seen at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Coimbatore, it now also has 8 selected biographies, all created in 2017. However two of them — biog #4 and biog #5 — are based on articles which were untagged stubs. The two articles are Adam Sinclair and C. T. Rajakantham, which both fail WP:DYKCHECK, so I have now tagged them as stubs. They should be removed, leaving a total of only 7 selected articles and biogs.

Meanwhile, the GA-class head article Coimbatore and its navbox Template:Coimbatore provide a vastly better showcase and navigational hub for the city.

I have not checked the quantity or quality of articles on Coimbatore, but I assume that there are enough to allow a decent portal to be built if editors have both the energy to build it and the ongoing commitment to sustain it. The evidence of the past 7 years is that in this case they haven't. Coimbatore is a Level-4 vital article, i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics. Given the very poor shape of many higher-priority portals and the poor development of this portal over the last 7 years, there is no reason to expect an influx of editors to curate and maintain it ... and readers are very badly served by being lured to abandoned mini-portals which so clearly fail the WP:PORTAL basic principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will comment here that the comment is frequently made about a portal to the effect that a topic such as a large city deserves portal as a broad area. No topic deserves a portal unless a portal-maintainer thinks that the topic deserves portal maintenance. I also think that the Vital Articles list is nonsense. I also note BHG's comments on the past seven years. This portal was not stillborn but has failure to thrive. It can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 8 bios. I'm not sure that DYK check gives an absolute stub vs start distinction; I've heard it argued that everything that passes is definitely start but not the converse. The portal was being updated in August 2017, and I note both creator and 2017 updater are still active. I'm leaning delete, but willing to reconsider if anyone comes forward to claim it. No prejudice to recreation. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2012-11-28 20:56:47 by User:Deadrat. No apparent maintainer. The usual case of an empty not-a-portal, not POG compliant. Portal:Coimbatore. Pldx1 (talk) 07:10, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/University portals

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. Having gone through this nom and plotted all the comments on a chart, I believe there is a reasonable consensus to delete all of these portals. The discussion has been open for nearly 2 months. 11 parties offered a bolded opinion. Of those, 6 unreservedly argued to delete all. Only two unreservedly argued to keep all. Pldx1 and VQuakr both deviated from delete all to request keeping one each (Pittsburgh and A&M respectively). Espresso Addict was the only truly mixed voter, arguing delete for A&M and Missouri, keep for Pittsburgh and W&J, and remaining neutral on the rest.

All that taken into consideration, I believe there is reasonable consensus to delete all, even Pittsburgh (which was the most argued-for, at 4 keeps vs 6 deletes and 1 neutral). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University portals

(Convenience links: subject articles University of Chicago, Fordham University, University of Missouri, University of Montana, Osaka University, University of Pittsburgh, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, Washington & Jefferson College)

(Wikipedia:WikiProject Mizzou, Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas A&M, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas Tech University courtesy talkpage notified)

Delete I think I can interpret the consensus established at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:University_of_Arkansas_at_Pine_Bluff to be: unless you are a 900 year-old university, it is very unlikely that you will meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. The subjects of these portals, (Portal:University of Missouri is single-page, the rest are multi-page), which are of course in various states of repair or disrepair, do not meet this requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Glorified navbox microportals for universities (41 portals deleted) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:New York University. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. A single university is a narrow topic which fails the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Will !vote after spot-checking. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Portal:Texas A&M University; Delete the rest. Texas A&M is a quite large and complex university system, and its longish list of article links seems to support that assessment. The portal's >11 year history also makes it stand out, even if the number of edits to it over the years has been limited. Happy to revisit my !vote if others feel these reasons are not sufficient per the guideline. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Other universities, including ones on this list, are just as complex, if not more so, than Texas A&M's, and also have significant lists of linked articles. CrazyPaco (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazypaco: specifically which ones have as many article-space links? Texas A&M is the 2nd largest in the US by enrollment. (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Wikipedia article links don't make the actual institutions more complex or diverse or important. That said, Pitt portal has more linked articles than Texas A&M. It is true that Texas A&M has the second largest enrollment, but as defined somewhat narrowly as among only public universities and for single campus enrollment (if including its health science center as a single campus). If size was a criteria of prominence or import, than UCF, FIU, GSU, and USF would be among the top 10 universities in United States, let alone schools with major system enrollments like Liberty, the University of Phoenix, or Ivy Tech Community College. Clearly none of those latter schools are even among the most prominent institutions in their own states, or in many cases, even the most prominent schools in their own cities. That said, I agree that Texas A&M is worthy of a portal as it is a topic that covers a myriad of broad and varied topics, as are many other universities that don't already have portals. I do not believe being dismissive of the value of portals for an entire category of topics as diverse and complex as universities is appropriate and I believe it sets a bad precedent. After all, a role of portals is to introduce readers to a large, varied topic by curating the most representative articles.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think a university needs to be quite 900 years old to merit a portal, but I think it does help if it has a large number of very prestigious alumni with decent-quality articles, as well as the sort of byzantine structure that results from centuries of haphazard growth. I don't know much about the US universities (or anything about Japanese ones), but I thought Chicago was one of the top ones? Still 5 articles, 5 biographies & an image is not enormous, and it does not look to have received much attention before The Transhumanist took over. Some of the others seem possibly viable too, eg Osaka claimed as 3rd Japanese university, but there just isn't time to assess them all properly, not just for what there is but what might be possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Pldx1's research below (which I haven't checked):

Keep portals University of Pittsburgh and Washington & Jefferson College, which meet/exceed the minimum;
Weak keep on portal University of Chicago, which has an international reputation and has some content worth preserving;
Delete portal University of Missouri, which is automated, and Texas A&M University , which is static;
Neutral on the others. Willing to keep if someone comes forward to maintain and expand them.

On a more general note, I don't think universities are necessarily narrow subject areas (though some of them are), and bundling disparate portals is a poor way of getting a clear result. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Universities are very complex institutions, often even large systems, with an incredibly broad diversity of related categories that fall under their purview. Many institutions have dozens to hundreds of notable associated articles ranging in topics from their nationally and internationally notable academic programs and resource centers, nationally notable athletic teams and programs, major research complexes and medical systems, nationally and internationally designated landmark buildings, major museums, internationally recognized faculty and alumni, major academic publishing houses and media productions, and arts, music, and theater programs. Many universities topics spread through all manner of human endeavors with varied missions and subunits, often with very unique and significant histories both locally and nationally. The curation and organization of these topics into introductory portals for these vast topics fit the very definition of what portals were originally designed for. CrazyPaco (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: !voter is portal creator/editor on Portal:University of Pittsburgh and was talk page notified; it is usually considered good form to disclose that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal:University of Pittsburgh - At least a great slideshow. Old portal, 324 subpages, created 2010-08-06 01:59:32 by User:Crazypaco. Empty maintainer= field.

	article	biography	picture	dyk	athletics
chicago	5	5	1	0
fordham	2	5	4	8
missouri	auto
montana	2	4	2		2
osaka	2	2	9
Pittsburgh	22	18	23	235	9
texas A&M	1	1	1
texas tech	5	5	5	2
Wash & Jeff	18	3	10	21

this one MUST be kept, at least to have an example of a large slideshow and to be used as a reference when evaluating ridiculous pseudo-portals pretending to describe and navigate into extra large and broad topics. Rem: the 235 are "events of the day", not DYK. Portal:University of Pittsburgh Pldx1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1:: we don't need to keep a portal on a narrow subject area for that; Portal:San Francisco Bay Area has a 232-image slideshow. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the University of Pittsburgh, and many other universities whether they have existing portals or not, are absolutely not narrow subject areas.CrazyPaco (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:University of Missouri - Useless duplicate of a navbox, 0 subpages, created 2019-03-01 02:50:44 by User:Grey Wanderer: Portal:University of Missouri. Pldx1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other 7 portals. Not even decent slideshows. Abandoned portals or too microscopic topics, at reader's choice.

Listing one by one, to be sure

- Old portal, 32 subpages, created 2010-04-21 05:11:32 by User:Article editor. No apparent maintainer. Portal:University of Chicago

- Old portal, 26 subpages, created 2017-04-25 04:04:41 by User:Drown Soda. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Fordham University

- Old portal, 20 subpages, created 2010-12-15 23:20:08 by User:Dsetay. No apparent maintainer. Portal:University of Montana

- Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2011-11-03 21:29:36 by User:GaiJin. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Osaka University

- Old portal, 9 subpages, created 2007-09-21 03:00:25 by User:Dvmorris. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Texas A&M University

- Old portal, 32 subpages, created 2008-09-04 22:06:38 by User:Wordbuilder. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Texas Tech University

- Old portal, 54 subpages, created 2010-06-09 20:40:54 by User:GrapedApe. No apparent maintainer, 2012 snippets. Portal:Washington & Jefferson College

Pldx1 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Slight update on Pitt Portal numbers that you listed above: one new article, one new athletic, and two new biography subpages have been added for a total of 71 subpages when counting images, but not including the 100s of "on this date" subpages which continues to grow with the goal of having information for all 365 days. Of note, the "on this date" information included in the Pitt Portal is a unique curation of information does not exist elsewhere (including outside Wikipedia). CrazyPaco (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and consensus from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Glorified navbox microportals for universities. SITH (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion of University Portals

I said that I would spot-check these nominations, and am about three weeks in doing so, but this MFD has not yet been closed. Here are the metrics on average daily pageviews for the portal and for the article for all of the universities that have portals at this time, regardless of whether they have been nominated for deletion. (Many more were already deleted.)

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent
University of Missouri	15	643	42.9	Period is 1 Mar 19 - 30 Apr 19, and includes a few high initial days due to a TFD.	2.33%
University of Oxford	11	3,801	345.5	Not nominated for deletion.	0.29%
University of Cambridge	9	2,894	321.6	Originator inactive since 2018. Not nominated for deletion.	0.31%
University of Texas at Austin	7	1,644	234.9	Not nominated; survived a recent MfD	0.43%
University of Pittsburgh	6	823	137.2		0.73%
Texas A&M University	5	2,005	401.0	Originator inactive since 2009.	0.25%
Texas Tech University	5	727	145.4		0.69%
University of Houston	5	757	151.4	Not nominated; survived a recent MfD	0.66%
University of Chicago	4	1,632	408.0	Originator blocked indef in 2016 for disruption	0.25%
Fordham University	4	1,444	361.0		0.28%
Osaka University	4	112	28.0	Originator inactive since 2013.	3.57%
Washington & Jefferson College	4	217	54.3	Originator inactive since 2015	1.84%
University of Montana	1	280	280.0	52 total portal pageviews. Originator inactive since 2015.	0.36%

As can be seen, the University of Missouri appears to have the highest pageview rate, but it was only created on 1 March, and had initially high pageviews due to a TFD notice. No university portal had as many as 20 daily pageviews.

Although it can be argued a priori that universities are broad subject areas, the a posteriori evidence is that university portals do not "attract large numbers of interested readers". Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All without prejudice to future creation in accordance with new guidelines. Willing to consider changing the Delete to Neutral for any university for which an editor makes a statement that they plan to maintain (or continue to maintain) the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recommend a Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All – There are too many portals in this bundled nomination to properly assess them all. This makes it quite easy to state "delete all" in a short paragraph, but makes it extremely time consuming to actually analyze each portal individually based upon each topic's own scope relative to WP:POG. No prejudice against renomination using single-entry MfD discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When portals are MFDed in bundles, portals fans such as NA1K argue that the portals need individual nominations. When they are nominated separately, portal fans complain that there are too many MFDs. NA1K and other portal fans have had four weeks to assess the 9 portals nominated here, and that's plenty long enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Saying that a bundled nomination of NINE portals makes it extremely time consuming to actually analyze each portal individually and suggesting that NINE individual nominations would be better in this respect is (1) innovative: this is really a whole new argument ; (2) counter-productive: if User:Northamerica1000 really wants to keep all of them, it could be an error to suggest that only fallacies remain as arguments to keep (3) misses the key point: comparing makes better decisions. And here, a simple comparison shows that Portal:University of Pittsburgh belongs to an endangered species: unlike others, this one is a maintained portal. And we must protect this endangered species, by clearing those fake portals that lure the reader and create a strong rejection against the whole portal space. Pldx1 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. On a technical level a single university fails the WP:POG criteria that portals should be about "broad subject areas" (e.g. the main article+navbox can handle it). However, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, outside of TH edits, these portals are again, largely abandoned cut-and-pastes of a main article+navbox. Universities should be a place where Wikipedia wants to encourge new editors to join the project; any university student wandering into their portal, will get the impression that Wikipedia is a failing/decaying project. Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - A university portal is "per si" a limited scope. There is a "bias problem" too, much concern for the creation of portals to everything related to the US, Britain and Australia while portals of important themes are neglected.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:41, 18 June 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bucharest

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) 20:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Bucharest

A non-portal abandoned for 14 years.

This portal was created in 2005 by Ronline (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2013. It has only ever been a static display of one selected article, one unimpressive selected picture, and one set of DYKs (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Bucharest). All those three subpages remain unchanged since creation in 2005, apart from minor tweaks; as afar as I can see there has been no rotation of topics.

Bucharest is a European capital city with a 2011 population of 1.88 million and hundreds of years of history (it was destroyed multiple times, but was the seat of Vlad the Impaler). I have not assessed the extent of Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, but I assume that there would be more than enough material to create a good portal on this topic if anyone has the energy to create it and the commitment to maintain it. (Sadly, that commitment has been in short supply for too many portals).

However, the current page is not worth keeping. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this is just a severely degraded version of the B-class head article Bucharest, with its two well-developed navboxes.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox or other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
- - I am not sure whether capital cities of nations "deserve" portals, but portals are only in order if they are maintained.
  - This is another portal by a long-inactive editor.
  - As BHG states in the conditions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a pretty useless portal without being completely redone. Only one selected article and image, and the image doesn't really have any sort of caption. The DYKs are pretty terrible. Palace of the Parliament in no way supports the claim that it's the world's second largest building and List of largest buildings makes it pretty clear it isn't by any measure. The GDP per capita figure is badly out of date (it's more than twice that now) and also isn't remotely interesting. Societatea de Transport București does not support the claim that it's the fourth largest system of its kind in Europe. As a capital city with plenty of history it may be possible to write a decent portal about it but that portal will have to do a better job than this. Hut 8.5 21:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Portal has too many redlinks. Analysis by BHG is on the mark. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a shame, Bucharest as a capital with a long history is an obvious subject for a portal. I agree this is not worth keeping, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old draft of a portal, 7 subpages, created 2005-08-18 08:49:29 by User:Ronline. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Bucharest. Pldx1 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Super Hero

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: Already deleted by Reaper Eternal Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Super Hero

one of several drafts which are basically one user creating articles about his non-notable facebook videos, friends and family noq (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless crap. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laura with me for unified discussion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3&G11, product of a serial troll self-fantasy poster. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aztec mythology (2nd nomination)

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) 20:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Aztec mythology

Abandoned manual non-portal converted to an automated pseudo-portal on a narrow topic. Redundant to the head article Aztec mythology and the navbox {{Aztec mythology}}.

In its current form as automated[3] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (aka TTH, aka The Portalspammer), this pseudo-portal draws its article list solely from the navbox {{Aztec mythology}}, of which it is therefore simply a bloated fork. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

This portal was created in 2012 by Giggette (talk · contribs) as an old-style manual portal with subpages. (See Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Aztec mythology). However, the oddly-named subpages did not form any sort of rotating display of navigational aid; they simply filed a series of boxes as a static display, as seen in the version of 13 May 2018[4]. Refreshing the page produces no change; this is just a slim single issue of a magazine. The creator has not edited since 2015, the mnaual versiuon is abandoned.

So neither automated nor manual version comes anywhere meeting the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".

This is a narrow topic. If we are going to have a portal in this area, it would be better to focus it on the broader topic of Aztec civilization as a whole. There was briefly a Portal:Aztecs, but it was automated junk created by the portalspammer and deleted at the first of the two mass deletions of automated portalspam.

We do have two existing portal at higher-level topics: Portal:Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Portal:Mesoamerica. Both are curated portals, but the Portal:Mesoamerica is much more extensive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to have been a previous unattended deletion discussion in 2014: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aztec mythology. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Espresso Addict. I meant to examine that MFD, but sloppily forgot.

I agree with Mercurywoodrose's observation there that this portal is not needed, not linked to, and the subject is better serviced by a navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a zombie portal, but a portal at which a lead bullet was fired, but missed narrowly, and therefore was never killed. It should have been killed and still should be killed. Another abandoned portal that has been converted to a robotic portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TTH was right when nuking the previous version of this portal, 14 subpages, created 2012-09-08 04:19:57 by User:Giggette. Replacement by a degraded version of the navbox was a wrong move. Portal:Aztec mythology. Pldx1 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Narendra Modi

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) 20:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Narendra Modi

Junk. Nothing here except a sea of red links.

This red link collection was created in Feb 2016. In March 2016 it was redirected[5] by User:DexDor to Portal:Government of India with the edit summary this appears to have been created and then abandoned as a mass of redlinks.

However, earlier today it was unredirected[6] by @UnitedStatesian, so that the redlinks are now displayed in all their glory.

I hope that UnitedStatesian will explain why they thought that this was helpful, because I can't see the benefit.

Anyway, it's just an abandoned mess. Please delete it ASAP. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ in favour of the article Narendra Modi. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect, do not delete. The decision to redirect to Portal:Government of India was a good one.

There is no good reason to delete the history. Narendra Modi is one of the most important people in the world for the near future, at least. Many, of those who know of Portals, could very reasonably expect a Portal on this person. I disagree that there should be a portal for him, I think there should be way fewer portals, if any, and Narendra Modi is completely within scope for Portal:Government of India; which itself is completely in scope for Portal:India.

A soft redirect to Portal:Government of India, but a note point also to Narendra Modi, may be a good outcome, subject to a final solution for Portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation As with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of the Philippines, below, there were two choices: take it to WP:Redirects for discussion, or revert each highly inappropriate redirection and take them both here. I chose the latter, as I think discussion here is more likely to make it clear inappropriate redirection is not a pathway to save a bad portal page and its subpages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The redirects are not inappropriate at all. Given the dubious existence of the Portal, redirection is completely appropriate. Redirects are cheap. Redirects are effective. Redirection is supported by policy, WP:ATD. The creator and any other authors with bookmarks to the page will be well served by the redirect. They and anyone else looking for a Portal on Modi will be much better served by being sent to Portal:Government of India. And further again, anyone interested in that Portal (20 views per day) would be better served if it redirected to Portal:India (150 views per day). Redirection, whether hard or soft redirection, is a perfectly good way to deal with individual problem portals, until there is consensus on what to do about them collectively. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would you propose be done with the subpages? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Back before the recent portalspam, I would say to either redirect subpages to the top level page (it redirected), or ignore them as orphan pages that not reader nor normal editors will ever visit. Now, I think an RfC is needed to decide these questions. I am in favour of deprecating all of Portalspace, archive the lot, and carve it off Wikipedia. I note the top Portal pages, Main page and ~~Wikipedia:Contents~~(it is, I’d put it at WP:Comtents), are not even in Portalspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, we already had just such an RFC last year: WP:ENDPORTALS. I supported zapping the lot as the least worst of a pair of binary options, but the consensus was not to zap the lot, and I accept the consensus unless & until it is overturned. I am not sure that it would be a wise idea to re-run that huge discussion only a year later, but if you do want to have a re-run, then please consult with others to draw up a range of options.

Meanwhile, we have 1/ a consensus not zap everything; 2/ no broad consensus on which portals should exist or even what portals should try to do, let alone what formats are appropriate; 3/ a rough consensus about certain types of junk which should be deleted.

So for now we are in the latter half of a cleanup phase. Most of the worst automated crap is gone, as are many portals on excessively narrow topics, so most of what we are culling now is the stunted pants which never grew. I have repeatedly voted to keep portals which I think are unwise, because they don't fit those narrow criteria on which there is a rough consensus. I don't want to pre-empt those broader RFCs.

So it would be much better to keep MFD for the types of pages that are actually coming to MFD, and take the broad musing elsewhere, e.g. to WT:WPPORT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought, and hoped, User:BrownHairedGirl, that you were going to do this, better that the shotgun mess of WP:ENDPORTALS. I may try, but not this fortnight for sure. Note that at ENDPORTALS I advocated for archiving most portals by redirection, and I still argue for this, whether by hard or soft redirection. Thin portals detract from the encyclopedia due to them content forking mainspace and dividing editor resources, and portals are bad because they do not have the culture of sourcing demanded in mainspace. Until a decision is made, undoing past redirects and discussing them one at a time is completely stupid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe, I was going to do something like a bit like that, but my process got derailed from several directions.

My current thinking, developed in the very productive non-deletion discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ireland, is that I was on the wrong path. I now think that we need to start by asking much more fundamental questions, something like those I set out at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ireland#4bigquestions. I could expand more on that, but I think and a focus on those fundamentals would avoid the hideous binary of I-likes-em/I-hates-em/Nobody-uses-em/But-I-use-em/You-an-idiot/Your-granny-looks-like-an-ox nonsense of ENDPORTALS.

I reckon that if there is a stable consensus to be found anywhere, it will amount to more than I would like, fewer than portal fans would like, but with a quality threshold that most people will like. If we have that, then the remaining scope scope issues won't be so critical.

See also WT:WikiProject Portals#Proposing_two-stage_process_for_deletion_of_portals, and esp my ALT proposal below it. I think that could bridge a lot of the gap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm blanking as to a speedy category for this kind of thing. It's not literally blank. It's not a test, nor nonsense, nor vandalism. It's not promotional. The category contains plenty, so P2 is out. It doesn't even fall under P1–A3, because there is content beyond the title (the link to Make in India). Could it fall under the catch-all of "Technical deletions" (G6)? Could we apply for an unedited draft-like deletion process to be applied to nearly blank portal drafts that have been abandoned for at least 6 months? Is redirection commonly being used to cover this kind of problem? Espresso Addict (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Draftifying first, along with the subpages, would be better. Then regular G13 would apply after 6 months. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that draftifying may be appropriate in some cases, if we can overcome the technical problem that simply moving it to draft space may break the transclusions ... but when all we have is a broken shell of a redlink festival, draftifying seems to me to be a waste of time. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to preserve every trivial test page. Just get rid of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything that policy says we can do with this is a colossal waste of everyone's time, unfortunately. Even moving to draftspace of something with subpages is likely to take time. But unless this is a common problem, there's no likelihood for getting a speedy category for "newbie started a portal, couldn't make the code work, and wandered off". Espresso Addict (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EA, I thought for moment that it might be helpful to have a new CSD which was explicitly IAR: do this at your own risk, but prepare to get monstered if consensus goes against you. But then I thought of my poor bones being scorched by my sizzling flesh as I was burnt at the stake beside the village pump for suggesting it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I tend to bear in mind the most deletionist admins I can think of and consider whether they would interpret the CSD rubric the same way I would. Invoking IAR... that would be a No. And also once one's been an admin for a considerable proportion of one's editing life (as BHG & I both have been) it's easy to forget that admins can easily check redlinks were properly deleted; regular editors cannot. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the redirect made by User:DexDor in March 2016 was a good-faith bad redirect. I agree that Redirects Are Cheap, and I know that for that reason, many editors think that redirecting, as a backdoor deletion, is almost always the proper method of dealing with bad pages that need deletion. I disagree, and think that redirecting is often the easy wrong way to deal with bad pages. My experience at Articles for Creation is that too often the existence of a questionable redirect makes it harder to clean up. In particular, a bad portal should not be redirected to a better portal, but discussed for deletion. I think that User:UnitedStatesian was faced with a situation where there was no right answer. I think that Redirects for Discussion would have been the less wrong answer, but I can understand why they chose to undo the bad redirect and take the bad portal to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Converting to a redirect was a simple (i.e. not creating a MFD page and involving other editors) way to remove the page from cleanup lists and a way that could easily be reverted (e.g. if the portal creator decided to fix/complete the portal). My intent was probably that if the redirect stuck (i.e. the portal creator didn't revert it) then if any pages related to the portal (including the redirect itself) later appeared in cleanup lists it would be easy to argue at xFD (or possibly at CSD) that the pages should be deleted - e.g. "These are subpages of a half-completed portal that was converted to a redirect X years ago.". If the pages didn't appear in cleanup lists then they could be left. You refer to it being a bad redirect, but don't explain why you think that. DexDor^(talk) 18:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another point: Where I've previously taken things to MFD (example) the consensus was that it is better to convert to a redirect than to completely delete; this unredirect+MFD is trying to do the opposite of that. DexDor^(talk) 20:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this point, this is a bad portal that never was finished and never should have existed. It is a zombie that has been brought back to life by removing a lead bullet. It now needs a silver bullet. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert (back) to redirect. DexDor^(talk) 20:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not useful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't we have a Portal:Donald Trump, you know, this guy who is a businessman and the nominee for the Republican Party in the 2016 United States Presidential election ? My crystal ball tells me that Narendra Modi will open a private golf club in a near future. Don't mess with golf ! Pldx1 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That Portal is actually far worse, not just a content forking distraction, but a POVFORK and NPOV failure. Nominated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Donald Trump. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this empty mess. No prejudice to creation of a proper portal if enough subject matter is available around this single person (which I doubt). — JFG ^talk 00:45, 6 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Laura with me

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: snow delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Laura with me

Including other drafts by same creator:

Unquestionably non-notable film with no mentions in any sources whatsoever. It doesn't meet the letter of WP:G3, WP:G11 or WP:U5, so I'm coming here instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced promotion of non notable film, and of the amatures involved. That’s G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So User:Yunshui disagrees? Not blatant enough? A seventeen year old with a camera is vanity posting all over WikiMedia projects, posting his name, his familiy’s, and his friend also involved. If that’s not promotion, what is? Does there have to be a sale pitch? Add to that the fact that it is completely unsourced, and unsourceable, and it is not just requiring a fundamental rewrite, it simply cannot be rewritten. The author is a self-promoting troll. Check the deleted contributions. This is squarely G11, even if you have to look harder than “blatant”, which is not a G11 word. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talkpage. Also Delete, obviously. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Although this falls far short of relevant CSD criteria, it also looks beyond repair. Per Richie33 above. DlohCier ekim 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 and Yunshui: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alfwin Fernando. Given that there are this many socks, I think it is safe to assume that there is some other blocked account out there that predates the current named master. One of you or a passing may wish to G5 it (or IAR or whatever.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, looking into this, they weirdly created all of those accounts except one from their main account in an attempt to make it so the user exists so they could put up a user page. One of them was created independently and had no public connection. Still exceptionally weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with chlorine bleach, which is used to wash socks. Sometimes it is easier just to go with MFD than to figure out what CSD criterion to use. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, for the reasons given above. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 2 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Edwina Dunn

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: keep. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names can be used if more discussion is needed on the username Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Edwina Dunn

This draft appears to be an autobiography, because the name of the subject is Edwina Dunn and the name of the submitting account is Edwina Dunn. However, it has been resubmitted with the explanation that it is not an autobiography. (If it is not an autobiography, then the account violates the username guidelines.) The author isn't about to submit a satisfactory draft, and is wasting her time and our time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The submitter has asked me what to do on my talk page, and I have advised her to read the autobiography policy and the conflict of interest policy. Please respond here (not on my talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The submitter says that they are not Edwina Dunn. In that case, they confused an article name with an account name, an error that occasionally happens although it is not our fault. If so, if they change their user name and come here and request to Keep the draft in order to work with a more experienced editor to improve it, I will change my !vote to a Weak Keep, but only if they change their user name and come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reasons for deletion listed so far. Many problems ... WP:COI (alleged], WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY (suspected) and WP:Reference bombed are not reasons for deletion even in mainspace. Leave it alone for standard AfC processes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it {{COI}}. That’s enough for now, warn and block if the tag is removed without explanation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - The author has changed their account name, but has not come here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Murphy's Law states that when anything can possibly go wrong, it will. There should be a corollary that occasionally something will go wrong even though it could not possibly have gone wrong. An editor using the name of a real living person as an account name because they think that an account name and an article name are the same is an example. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SmokeyJoe. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:42, 11 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trauma and orthopaedics

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) 20:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Trauma and orthopaedics

Another abandoned non-portal.

This one was created in 2014, with 4 boxes, but only one item to fill each of them. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Trauma and orthopaedics shows one Selected biography, one Selected article, one Selected injury, one Selected examination, one Selected picture ... and that's it. There is a purge link on the page, but it doesn't change anything because there is nothing to replace the current selection.

This isn't a portal at all. It's just a single issue of a slim magazine.

Maybe there could be a worthwhile portal on this topic, but this isn't it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is certainly potential for a real portal on this topic, but this is just static (all max=1) and abandoned since June 2014. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending recreation - This is topic worthy of a portal but it would be better to start with a clean slate in this case. Waggers TALK 08:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending recreation

Delete - Old attempt, 26 subpages, created 2014-04-11 12:52:20 by User:Mschamberlain. Many windows, but only one item of each kind. Portal:Trauma and orthopaedics. Pldx1 (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with all of the above comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments, particularly BHG and Waggers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:48, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trilobites

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Trilobites

Paleontology-related portals at MFD 1 May 2019
Portal	Sub-pages	MFD
P:Pterosaurs	Pterosaurs subpg	MFD — Pterosaurs
P:Brachiopods	Brachiopods subpg	MFD — Brachiopods
P:Trilobites	Trilobites subpg	MFD — Trilobites
P:Ammonoids	Ammonoids subpg	MFD — Ammonoids
P:Pseudosuchians	Pseudosuchians subpg	MFD — Pseudosuchians
P:Trace fossils	Trace fossils subpg	MFD — Trace fossils

Another non-portal.

Not a portal, just a portal shell with a picture. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Trilobites shows 9 selected pics in all, plus one DYK page with 3 entries.

This is one of a large number of paleontology-related portals created by Abyssal (talk · contribs). This one was built in 2015, and then apparently abandoned.

Maybe there could be a portal on Trilobites, but this is not it..

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Sadly, this one does not enhance.

Abyssal has created some portals which are well-developed (see User:Abyssal/Abyssal portal/Portals started). Others less so: see the current MFD:Portal:Ammonoids, MFD:Portal:Pseudosuchians, MFD:Portal:Trace fossils, and the closed MFD:Portal:Prehistory of Oceania and MFD:Portal:Prehistory of North America. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify, as Abyssal has shown interest in that before. This was abandoned unfinished and correctly categorised as incomplete, which should have kept it out of the categories in the de facto portal draft space. Then DexDor removed the under construction category in January 2016‎ and no-one else touched it until The Transhumanist came along. The Abyssal version had 9 images and one DYK set, and was far from meeting guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old not-a-portal, 19 subpages, created 2015-11-19 15:06:28 by User:Abyssal. Portal:Trilobites. Pldx1 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-portal portal. When BHG refers to a portal shell, is that a trilobite shell? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of the Philippines

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:University of the Philippines

This portal is just a short summary of a single article, followed by a number of red links. The topic seems very small for a portal, and the portal hasn't really been touched since its creation. The related Category:University of the Philippines portal is odd as it contains only this article. CMD (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redlink show is a non-portal, and has been since its creation in 2013. It was redirected[7] in 2016 to Portal:Philippines by @DexDor ... but yesterday the redirect was reverted[8] by @UnitedStatesian as improper redirection.

Why did you do that, USian? I can't see any benefit to either keeping the redlink-strewn page, or of having this week-long discussion about an obvious deletion candidate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a handful of universities worldwide might merit a portal; no evidence this is among them. And even if it were, this is an unfinished framework, not a portal. It even manages not to link to its header topic, which is a flaw. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old not-a-portal, 4 subpages, created 2013-02-25 14:27:48 by User:Diesscamomot. Portal:University of the Philippines. Pldx1 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation can be found in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Narendra Modi, above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that the redirect made by User:DexDor in January 2016 was a good-faith bad redirect. I agree that Redirects Are Cheap, and I know that for that reason, many editors think that redirecting, as a backdoor deletion, is almost always the proper method of dealing with bad pages that need deletion. I disagree, and think that redirecting is often the easy wrong way to deal with bad pages. My experience at Articles for Creation is that too often the existence of a questionable redirect makes it harder to clean up. In particular, a bad portal should not be redirected to a better portal, but discussed for deletion. I think that User:UnitedStatesian was faced with a situation where there was no right answer. I think that Redirects for Discussion would have been the less wrong answer, but I can understand why they chose to undo the bad redirect and take the bad portal to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Narendra Modi. DexDor^(talk) 18:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At this point, this is a bad portal that never was finished and never should have existed. It is a zombie that has been brought back to life by removing a lead bullet. It now needs a silver bullet. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ammonoids

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Ammonoids

Paleontology-related portals at MFD 1 May 2019
Portal	Sub-pages	MFD
P:Pterosaurs	Pterosaurs subpg	MFD — Pterosaurs
P:Brachiopods	Brachiopods subpg	MFD — Brachiopods
P:Trilobites	Trilobites subpg	MFD — Trilobites
P:Ammonoids	Ammonoids subpg	MFD — Ammonoids
P:Pseudosuchians	Pseudosuchians subpg	MFD — Pseudosuchians
P:Trace fossils	Trace fossils subpg	MFD — Trace fossils

Not a portal, just a portal shell with a picture gallery. 25 pics in all, but I am not sure of their relevance: the one it showed me is Portal:Ammonoids/Selected picture/2, which is some streetlamps in Dorset with a paleontology link.

This is one of a very large number of paleontology-related portals created by Abyssal (talk · contribs), this one was built in 2015, and then apparently abandoned.

Maybe there could be a portal on Ammonoids, but this is not it..

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Sadly, this one does not enhance.

Abyssal has created some portals which are well-developed (see User:Abyssal/Abyssal portal/Portals started). Others less so: see the current MFD:Portal:Pseudosuchians, MFD:Portal:Trace fossils, and the closed MFD:Portal:Prehistory of Oceania and MFD:Portal:Prehistory of North America BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When BHG says, "just a portal shell", does that mean an ammonoid shell, or is this a trace fossil? But her analysis is sound. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify, if desired. I think we could have safely bundled these fossil micro-portals of Abyssal's. It's got 24 images, but nothing else – not a portal, just an image gallery. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old not-a-portal, 32 subpages, created 2015-11-19 15:37:05 by User:Abyssal. Herring gull, herring gull, you seems so lonely facing the empty Portal Sea. Portal:Ammonoids. Pldx1 (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC) signed later[reply]
Delete It's just a portal shell.
visual for pun.
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pseudosuchians (2nd nomination)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pseudosuchians

Paleontology-related portals at MFD 1 May 2019
Portal	Sub-pages	MFD
P:Pterosaurs	Pterosaurs subpg	MFD — Pterosaurs
P:Brachiopods	Brachiopods subpg	MFD — Brachiopods
P:Trilobites	Trilobites subpg	MFD — Trilobites
P:Ammonoids	Ammonoids subpg	MFD — Ammonoids
P:Pseudosuchians	Pseudosuchians subpg	MFD — Pseudosuchians
P:Trace fossils	Trace fossils subpg	MFD — Trace fossils

Abandoned mini-portal.

One of a very large number of paleontology-related portals created by Abyssal (talk · contribs), this one was built in 2015 with 3 Selected articles, 1 Selected pictures, and some DYKs. And there it has remained.

Pseudosuchia is not a very narrow topic. Category:Pseudosuchians and its subcats contains 683 articles, of which 400 are non-stubs. There could potentially be a useful portal on the topic, but this is not it. The head article Pseudosuchia and the navbox Template:Pseudosuchia provide much better navigation than this portal.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Sadly, this one does not enhance.

Abyssal has created some portals which are well-developed (see User:Abyssal/Abyssal portal/Portals started). Others less so: see the current MFD:Portal:Trace fossils, and the closed MFD:Portal:Prehistory of Oceania and MFD:Portal:Prehistory of North America.

This portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pseudosuchians in 2017. That discussion closed as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 1 May 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an unsigned MFD nomination, but the history shows that it is by User:BrownHairedGirl. So does the detailed analysis show that it is her work. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Now signed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify, if Abyssal desires. Rather further down the evolutionary tree to a portal with 3 selected articles, an image and 8 complete DYK sets, but still not there yet. I agree with the nominator that this is potentially a viable topic – our coverage in this area is good –and if deleted, would suggest a soft delete in case anyone wants to use this as a basis. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old pseudo-portal, 24 subpages, created 2015-09-02 15:25:46 by User:Abyssal. THREE articles, ONE picture. Not a 'navigation tool'! Portal:Pseudosuchians. Pldx1 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly by feeding to crocodiles. Agree with the analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Trace fossils

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Trace fossils

Paleontology-related portals at MFD 1 May 2019
Portal	Sub-pages	MFD
P:Pterosaurs	Pterosaurs subpg	MFD — Pterosaurs
P:Brachiopods	Brachiopods subpg	MFD — Brachiopods
P:Trilobites	Trilobites subpg	MFD — Trilobites
P:Ammonoids	Ammonoids subpg	MFD — Ammonoids
P:Pseudosuchians	Pseudosuchians subpg	MFD — Pseudosuchians
P:Trace fossils	Trace fossils subpg	MFD — Trace fossils

A non-portal. There is nothing here except a few DYKs: see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Trace fossils. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This non-portal portal is a trace fossil. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or I suppose userify, if Abyssal desires. Only one DYK set and some material that got deleted when The Transhumanist got involved. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not-a-portal. Pldx1 (talk) 09:43, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Hazara people

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Hazara people

Narrow topic, abandoned manual micro-portal. Tagged as "under construction" since August 2011, which it clearly is not. It still has only 3 Selected articles, and one Selected biography, all created in 2011. The notice should say "abandoned August 21, 2011".

The B-class head article Hazaras and the misnamed navbox Template:Hazara nationalism (it's actually about the people) provide good coverage and navigation. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this abandoned micro-portal is no enhancement. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well, if it is abandoned during construction, is it still under construction? That doesn't matter. We don't need abandoned unfinished portals. As BHG says. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned unfinished. Stated "This portal is under construction, please visit in few days, this portal was started on August 21, 2011. The articles, pictures and other materials are added as sample." across the top for six years, until an unrelated editor tried to tidy it up in 2017 but should have sent it to MfD. Contents 3 articles, 1 bio, a single lonely DYK and not even any images do not begin to meet the guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dead portal, 29 subpages, created 2011-08-20 21:21:26 by a dead WikiProject. DYK/7 is Did You Know ... that the origins of chromatography can be traced to the work of Russian botanist Mikhail Tsvet, but his work saw little use until the 1930s?... but the Mikhail Tsvet article has no mention of Hazara. Pldx1 (talk) 09:52, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:UK trams

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. T. Canens (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:UK trams

Abandoned non-portal on a marginal topic. It has one selected article, one selected picture, one selected news item, and five "fascinating facts" of unimpressive quality, of which my favourite is #4 "There have been at least 10 ways of powering trams over the years, with some still to be discovered...".

The "in the news" section has one item: "Blackpool Illuminations Switch-On 31st August 2007. Blackpool Trams. The world famous Blackpool Illuminations will be switched on tonight."

This portal was created in August 2007‎ by Tbo 157 (talk · contribs), and built mostly by Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs). Both editors last edited in 2015. The subpages were are created in 2007, with only minor edits since. Per requested move discussion in May 2018, the portal was moved from Portal:UK Trams to the current uncapitalised form.

This isn't a portal at all. It's a slim single-issue magazine from 2007. Unsurprisingly, it is also unviewed: an average of 1.36 pageviews/day in Jan–Feb 2019, which is likely all background noise.

I don't think this meets the WP:POG criterion says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Trams are a very marginal part of contemporary transport in the UK, with only 7 currently-functioning systems; the extensive tram network built in the 19th and early 20th century was mostly dismantled in the 1950s, and often before then. There is no head article, just brief mentions in Trams in Europe#United_Kingdom and Transport in the United Kingdom#Trams_and_light_rail and the navbox {{UK light rail}}.

Any editor thinking of expanding coverage in this area would do best to start by writing a good head article. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... so start with the actual main page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another non-portal portal with aspects of a zombie portal. As BHG says, a magazine article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trams are on the ascendant here, so a portal might well be possible. However this was abandoned in 2007 leaving a static (max=1) framework in place, except for the 3 "fascinating facts". It looks as if the plan was to rotate it manually, but that didn't happen. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying for the record, independent of any response from Waggers to my below query, that I am happy for recreation of a portal at this title. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments added below, ping me to re-review the portal/article when you are ready, Waggers. We are in fact working on a deadline here imposed by the MfD process. On which point, I don't think that it is particularly precipitate to bring a portal abandoned in such a poor state in 2007 to this forum. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict Happy to do so, but I'm not about to put time and effort into updating something only for it to be deleted moments later. If I'm given a fair chance to work on it, I'll do so. As is mentioned below, generating some of the required content is a non-trivial task and it's not reasonable to expect something amazing by the time this MfD closes. This is Wikipedia; I refuse to be put under that kind of time pressure for a sizeable task that I'm volunteering to do in my own time. Waggers TALK 13:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: That's pretty much what I said at the MfD for Portal:Oscar Wilde. Would draftifying or moving to the Wikiproject be a workable solution? I don't know how much of the wikicode doesn't work in other spaces. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Neither do I. I recall there was a proposal to allow portals in drafts space, or create a new draft portal space, and if my memory is right both of those were rejected. But we could slap {{in use}} or something similar on these portals while we sort them out. Maybe {{Portal maintenance status}} could be modified to display something for low quality / broken portals that need a revamp. Waggers TALK 14:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: It used to be possible to simply remove a portal to de facto draft portal space by appropriate categorisation plus removing it from the list of all portals. But I don't know how this works with the new maintenance template. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I think our answer, or part of it, is here: Template:Portal_maintenance_status#Categories. So using the appropriate qualifier there, as well as removing it from the list (which presumably we'd still have to do manually), should do the trick. Waggers TALK 15:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm willing to take this one on, expand it and get it up to date. Can I suggest that rather than being so trigger-happy with nominating such portals for deletion we first seek out editors who might be willing to take them on at the WikiProject? WaggersTALK 08:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To qualify that: Obviously if no willing editors step forward within a certain timeframe, MfD is then a reasonable next step. Waggers TALK 08:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: What are you offering to do here? And on what timescale? The existing portal doesn't seem to offer much of a start on a blank portals template. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018|broken=yes|note=Has no root article}} (retrieved right now) says otherwise. Pldx1 (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pldx1, that's not exactly an explicit request for assistance, and given the wikiproject only really got started last year and has since been sidetracked by this distracting deletion spree and associated drama, I don't think that proves anything at all. Espresso Addict - much the same treatment as I gave to Portal:Eurovision Song Contest yesterday, but also as has been pointed out there's no lead article for this topic; it's a sufficiently notable topic for an article in its own right so I suspect maintaining the portal will also lead me to creating some more related content in the encyclopaedia itself too. As for timescales, there is no deadline but a quick overhaul to add more relevant (existing) content and utilise the transcription based templates won't take very long. Waggers TALK 11:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers:, I object very strongly to being called trigger-happy for MFDing a page which has been abandoned for 12 years, and where both the creating editors retired from Wikipedia 4 years ago. Please try a little bit of the core policy WP:CIVILITY, and strike that comment.

As noted in the nomination, WP:PORTAL says "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but there is no head article to enhance. Please go and write that head article before considering a portal. (Writing a good, well-sourced head article on a topic like this article is a non-trivial task. It will be some time before anyone is read to move on to icing the cake with a portal)

As to the wikiproject only really got started last year and has since been sidetracked by this distracting deletion spree, lord spare us. Honestly, that's as counterfactual as it gets. The portals WikiProject spent most of last year on a mad spree of spamming out about four thousand junk automated portals, and mangling previous existing portals into a useless automated state.

The community has spent the last two months cleaning up that crapflood with almost zero assistance from the chief portalspammer, and with almost no assistance from members of the portals project until the last few weeks, when a few editors have begun to help. However, all the hard work of identify analysing the flood has been editor who were previously uninvolved with the project. (I have personally spent hundreds of hours on this, comparing lists, writing software, building tracking categories, and meticulously analysing and documenting the history and flaws of hundreds of portals).

The resulting MFD nominations have overwhelmingly been closed as "delete", including the two mass deletions of automated portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals. So please don't abuse this MFD to vent about your dislike for a broad consensus.

As to Waggers's invocation of Portal:Eurovision Song Contest as a model for "improvement", see my two comments[9] last night at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eurovision Song Contest on his tweaks to that portal. In summary, it's some minor changes which still leave the portal risibly unhelpful, and an exceptionally poor overview of an annual event which has been running for 63 years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both these portals, like everything on Wikipedia, are a work in progress. Deleting something because it isn't "finished" is not what MfD is for. As for trigger-happy, you've nominated hundreds of portals for deletion in a very short space of time. As such, I think my comment is valid. This mass deletion spree is just as harmful, if not more so, than TheTranshumanist's ill-advised creation spree. Slowing down to take the time to work out what should and shouldn't constitute a portal would be a far better use of all of our time than this "test everything at MfD" madness. Waggers TALK 13:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: I have made MFD nominations only after a lot of research, and over 99% of the Portals I have nominated have been deleted by consensus. Your claims that I am trigger-happy, on a deletion spree, and just as harmful, if not more so, than TheTranshumanist's ill-advised creation spree are wholly unfounded, malicious smears and personal attacks ... as is your disgraceful claim that I am engaged in "test everything at MfD" madness. There is a lot of research behind this nomination, and it is not a test. I have used a lot of selectivity involved in assessing many many other portals which I don't bring MFD because I have concluded that they are not fundamentally flawed.

Please discuss the substance of the portal and the related policy issues, and drop your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. If you are unable to participate in a consensus-forming discussions without accusing other editors of madness, then you would be well-advised to desist from participating before you get yourself a block.

You have now had several warning about your abuse of MFD to make personal attacks and to reject established consensus. If there is any repetition, I will take this further, without warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First: calm down, for goodness' sake. There are no personal attacks here.

Second: please could you explain what your research comprises, and what criteria you use for determining what to nominate, what to leave alone, and what to work on? Better still, can we please have that discussion and get consensus for a uniform approach BEFORE nominating any more portals for deletion? Trying to do both at once is not conducive for a good working relationship with other editors and wrongly pre-empts the outcome of any such discussion. The Wikipedia way is to discuss contentious decisions before taking action. And spreading that discussion over hundreds of MfDs is not the way to do it. Waggers TALK 15:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, the attacks are as quoted. I have warned you on your talk page, and will not warn again. Just cut it out, NOW.

The research is summarised in the nomination, which as in several other discussions, you show no sign of having actually read.

If you actually wanted to understand the pattern of my nominations rather than doubling down on your disgraceful habit of making smears and personal attacks based on your unevidenced assumptions of bad faith, you could do so by reading my nominations. In the last day or two, you have make "keep" !votes claiming something to the effect of "no valid reason" at several nominations I made of portals based solely on navboxes, in which I not only explained in detail the issues involved, but also linked to the two WP:CENT-advertised mass nominations in which there was an overwhelming consensus of a large number of editors to delete automated portals based solely on navboxes.

So I will not waste my time writing a long history of my research for the benefit of an editor who repeatedly makes !votes without even reading the nomination and who repeatedly engages in angry, malicious accusations against identifiable editors. I write exceptionally length and detailed nominations, and I scrupulously correct any errors which I or other editors find. Yo have arrived late to the long process of portals cleanup, and show no signs of having done any homework. This would be a good time for you to start.

Take your own advice: slow down, read and discuss ... and fed gawds sake, drop your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not-a-portal, 28 subpages, created 2007-08-22 16:58:53 by User:Tbo 157. Last editorial change to UK Trams News Archive=2007. Last change (2012) was replacing one recued by rescued. To be deleted, without prejudice to build from scratch a decent portal. Portal:UK trams. Pldx1 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Winter Paralympics

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Winter Paralympics

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) DannyS712 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About 1/2 the scope of Portal:Paralympics which already covers the winter version and it's sports. This makes it fully redundant to the other portal. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(struck my !vote )~~Keep for now~~. The Summer and Winter Paralympics are really separate events. Held in different years in different locations, with little or no overlap in competitors.

I think that a complete split might be the best way ahead. This needs more investigation. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has an adequate amount of content on Wikipedia about the topic, as denoted in part by the category tree below, and also a decent amount of Recognized content, which can be viewed here. Meets portal guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Select [►] to view subcategories

Winter Paralympic Games

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep vote ignored the basis of this nomination completely. I don't dispute there is plenty of articles (maybe even great articles) but there is already a portal covering the event. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old portal, 81 subpages, created 2014-02-05 17:45:30 by User:LauraHale. Quite each time you look at one of these so called Portals, you obtain anything except from a navigation tool. Last editorial edit to any snippet I have checked = 2014. Portal:Winter Paralympics/Selected Games is made of four snippets... all about Great Britain. And, obviously, 2018 is too recent for this unmaintained object. Without prejudice of (1) having a maintainer (2) rewriting everything from scratch. Portal:Winter Paralympics. Pldx1 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the portal is old, it meets the portal guidelines. No problem with having a separate portal for the Winter Paralympics. There is one Australian athlete who has competed in both, but the overlap between the two is small, and Paralympics is usually considered to be the summer games. When the portal deletion push is over, the portal will be updated in time for the next games in Beijing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it will be updated based on history. If this is kept then I'll nominate Portal:Paralympics as redundant to the Winter one. There is no Portal:Summer Paralympics but that is not a reason to have two portals coving the same ground. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:Paralympics covers both the summer and winter incarnations, so this portal is redundant to the parent, making it contrary to the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Portal:Paralympics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above reasons, and because when a deletion spree went wrong on May the 4th, it caused this portal to look like the above sea of red, and no one at all noticed or care about it for the past four days. If anyone needed evidence that it is unmaintained and not really missed when it is gone... Fram (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changing my !vote). I was initially inclined to keep for now, with the idea that there should be separate portals for summer and winter paralympics, but this portal clearly isn't being maintained. Whatever editorial energy is available here would be better concentrated on the combined portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 8 May 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.

April 30, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armadillos

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 all except Portal:Fraud, which was withdrawn. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Armadillos

(convenience links: subject articles Armadillo, Camila Cabello, Discrete geometry, Fraud, Occupational safety and health)

(Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health courtesy talkpage notified)

Delete Five more one-click-created-and-since-unupdated single-page "portals" that 1) suffer from all the shortcomings of that class of "portals" and 2) do not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all.—N Ø 15:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Fraud" and "Occupational safety and health", delete the rest. Occupational safety and fraud are both broad enough subjects to keep. (Note: I created the Fraud portal.) — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural Close~~ - The subject matter of these portals is sufficiently different that they have different breadth-of-subject-area considerations. Unless the sort of detailed analysis that BHG has provided in her packages can be provided, it is better, as Mr. Guye says, to consider them separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon, does my analysis below tempt you to reconsider? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Fraud, which needs separate scrutiny. The Fraud portal has multiple sources for its article list. I haven't evaluated the appropriateness of that selection, but it deserves a separate discussion.

However, each of the other 4 is indeed narrow topic pseudo-portal. Each is a single-click-created automated portal drawing its selected articles list from a single page:

Portal:Armadillos, based on the article Armadillo
Portal:Camila Cabello, based on the navbox Template:Camila Cabello
Portal:Discrete geometry, based on the article Discrete geometry
Portal:Occupational safety and health, based on the navbox Template:Occupational safety and health

The two which use a navbox have exactly the same vice as all the many similar creations by the @The Transhumanist, (aka TTH, aka the portalspammer): they are simply bloated forks of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

The other two, which use the head article, share all the vices of the navbox-derived pair, but are actually much worse. Navboxes are designed as a set of links to articles closely-related to the core topic ... but the links in the head article may be to any variety of related topic. So portals created this way are a lucky dip: the article list may at best be a random selection of vaguely on topic articles, but may also be a pile of junk. For an example of a junk-portal made this way, see Portal:Lusaka, currently being discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lusaka. Five of the seven selected articles there have no place in the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Armadillos, Camila Cabello, and Discrete geometry as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. I will defer the analysis of Occupational Safety and Health to an IT engineer with experience testing occupational safety and health software, and will defer assessment of Fraud. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But be very careful with any dead armadillos resulting from the deletion. A DYK that isn't mentioned by that portal is that picking up dead armadillos is even worse than it sounds. You can get Hansen's disease from them. That isn't occupational safety and health. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wrote a long reply analysing these yesterday but lost it and could not be bothered to retype. The summary was that they are all very diverse, but only Fraud seems to me sufficiently different from the existing consensus to be worth investigating separately. I see this is the conclusion that BrownHairedGirl has come to independently. Could we therefore agree to debundle Fraud? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Fraud: If we're not going to debundle Fraud, my urgent problem with it as it stands is the BLP concern of stripping sources from BLPs while identifying them as having committed a crime. I'd suggest at minimum removing the source List of fraudsters, as I don't think the Lua module can be relied upon to recognise & exclude articles covered by the BLP policy. (I have no idea of whether this is technically feasible, and would point out that a death date &c is not sufficient, as practice on the main page and by extension other portals is to continue to adhere to BLP policy for all recently deceased people; further, non-biographies, such as articles that describe frauds and mention perpetrators would also be covered.) The list could be included by hand, excluding living people. I will also bring up this problem at the list article as I realise its sourcing leaves something to the imagination. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, @Espresso Addict. I have disabled[10] the List of fraudsters as a selected-articles-source for Portal:Fraud pending further discussion. I urge @UnitedStatesian to debundle that one from this set ASAP. It really does need closer attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've hidden all the living people in the source list as a quick option, but actually they really need removing entirely. Most will be sourced in the linked article (one hopes) but his kind of list is a BLP nightmare. Which makes me wonder how the Lua code handles hidden entries, as that is widely used to hide unsourced controversial material rather than removing it. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much more comfortable getting the unchanged MfD to closure by an admin., given all the drama I have observed resulting from modifications to MfDs while they are going on. Plus I think my guideline-related nom. reason applies to the fraud portal anyway. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The brouhaha is usually over added items, not subtracted ones, surely? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: I concur with Espresso here. Only a single individual cast their !vote in favor of deleting P:Fraud, and that was way before consensus turned remarkably against its inclusion here. The majority of us would be glad to see that withdrawn per WP:SNOW. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except Fraud per everyone else. Waggers TALK 08:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following four as useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-12-05 08:27:22 by User:TTH, : Portal:Armadillos

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2019-02-10 17:55:45 by User:H9v9n9, Portal:Camila Cabello

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2019-01-03 07:56:02 by User:TTH, Portal:Discrete geometry

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-11-01 15:08:37 by User:Pbsouthwood, Portal:Occupational safety and health

Pldx1 (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbundle this one - Maintained, 0 subpages, ---------- created 2019-02-16 06:16:02 by User:Mr. Guye, maintained by User:Mr. Guye. This one is another kind of animal than the other 4. To be nominated separately (no more specific homework done about this portal). : Portal:Fraud. Pldx1 (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a really cool one-liner prepared were I ever to nominate Portal:Fraud. Delete all except Faud per above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mind the interested reader that the above link has a timestamp of 26 April 2019, but Mr. Guye re-started curation of Portal:Fraud on 18:14, 30 April 2019‎. That should give more of a sense where I was coming from with that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Portal:Occupational safety and health, after analysis, as per analysis by BHG. Earlier 3 !votes to Delete are unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 2 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kalash Valleys

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kalash Valleys

Abandoned non-portal on a very narrow topic, created by a sockpuppet.

This portal about the Kalasha Valleys in Pakistan was created in October 2012‎ by Rachitrali (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked since 2017 as a sockpuppet. The portal has been abandoned since its creation.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Kalash Valleys shows that there is only ONE selected article, ONE selected biography, ONE selected panorama and ONE selected picture. Since their creation in 2012, some of the subpages have had minor formatting or disambiguation tweaks, but that's it.

There's also a DYK section with 4 items. 3 of them contain redlinks and the 4th is grammatically incoherent.

The head article Kalasha Valleys is a stub. Category:Kalasha valleys contains the head article plus 4 other articles. The subcat adds 6 articles, giving a total of ten ... but five of the ten are tagged as stubs.

There's some strong competition for the title of worst portal, but this is a plausible entrant. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As BHG says. This is a non-portal portal created by a suckpoppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The shapeshifting monster that wanders across continents and eats human brains is coming from Lusaka to the East Indies. Have your silver bullet ready. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is static (max=1 on all boxes). There are three redlinks in the four DYKs. Also Weirdest Use of the Word "Panorama" award. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old not-a-portal, 15 subpages, created 2012-10-01 06:36:22 by User:Rachitrali. Far worse navigation tool when compared to the Kalash people article. Portal:Kalash Valleys. Pldx1 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) signed later[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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malacca

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Malacca

Abandoned non-portal on a marginal topic.

This portal about the Malaysian state of Malacca was created in early 2009, and has been abandoned since 2013. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Malacca shows that there is only ONE selected article, plus two selected panoramas and three selected pictures. the last article/panorama/picture page to be created was Portal:Malacca/Selected picture/3, in 2013. Since then some of the subpages have had formatting tweaks, but that's it.

There is also a news section, but it's spewing out junk. The first three links it showed me just now are:

Turkey's President Erdogan proposes converting Hagia Sophia Museum to mosque -- the mosque is in Istnabul, Turkey
Fire kills nine, injures dozens in Chittagong, Bangladesh slum
Francis D'Souza, former Deputy Chief Minister of Goa, dies aged 64

No Malacca connection to any of those 3 stories. For the other 7 stories, I looked at the headlines, but I see no Malacca connection.

The head article Malacca is way better that this portal: far more links than the one article here, far more pictures, good navigation from the navbox Template:Melaka. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This is one is much degraded version of the head article.

Malacca is only a Level-5 Vital article, i.e. in the 10,001–50,000 range of priority topics. Given the very poor shape of many higher-priority portals and the neglect of this portal over the last year, there is no reason to expect an influx of editors to curate and maintain it.

This abandoned page is just a waste of readers' time. Just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sure that BHG, by non-portal, really means non-portal portal. In the 1980s the United States really had financial institutions known as non-bank banks. Other than that, I concur with the analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a potentially viable topic, but I'm coming to the view that if a portal is abandoned for years with only a handful of subboxes and far from meeting the portal project's long-established minimum of 20 articles, it should just be deleted without fuss. Here we have one article and five images. The news looks to be coming from Wikinews Asia. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old not-a-portal, 15 subpages, created 2012-10-01 06:36:22 by User:Rachitrali. Making place for a decent portal... if anyone cares to create it. Portal:Malacca. Pldx1 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GuestReady

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GuestReady

created by a spammer sock puppet. Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nomination. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not quite G11, not quite G5, definitely needs deletion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable company, likely created by paid editor. -Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Csgir (talk) 12:12, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirportExpert (2nd nomination)

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: Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirportExpert

Abandoned RfA. Created in good faith but not edited in a year. This is a follow-up from the previous nomination; specifically I have notified AirportExpert and would like him to have a say this time round. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It would have been far better; if you chatted with him over his t/p and then came over here (esp. that you were the nominator of the first MfD). Ought to be userified, shall AExpert not consent to the deletion but non-bothered, even if it stays. ∯WBG^converse 13:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall asking him (but I could be wrong) about running it; it's good faith and isn't a NOTNOW. All things are possible. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy or Mark historical - No need to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Lack of meaningful rationale. And, I don't wish to see a third MfD from the same user. ∯WBG^converse 13:34, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Port Harcourt

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Port Harcourt

Abandoned manual-style mini-portal on a marginal topic. Possibly paid-for spam.

This portal was created in 2013 by Afrowildchild (talk · contribs), one of many blocked sockpuppets of Stanleytux (talk · contribs); see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stanleytux.

It languished for a year with no content beyond one selected picture: Portal:Port Harcourt/Selected picture/1, which could be a candidate for a worst-ever-selected-pic prize. The portal was enhanced a little in 2014 by @Stanleytux (editing under his own account this time). Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Port Harcourt shows that there only 4 selected articles and 4 selected biographies, all created by Stanleytux in 2014 except for Portal:Port Harcourt/Selected article/4, created in 2016.

And there the portal has languished for 3 years. Stanleytux has been blocked since December 2018 for a second round of sockpuppetry after already getting a final-final chance (see User talk:Stanleytux#December_2018). There is strong whiff of undisclosed paid editing around that account, although I'm not clear where the allegations got to. But Stanleytux and the socks have engaged in bouts of spammy external links and of massive overcategorisation,of Rivers-State-related topics. So whatever exactly was going on, this portal is not the product of a trusted, good faith editor, and I would not assume that the choice of selected content was made with NPOV in mind. And Stanleytux is not going to be editing, so this dodgy portal is abandoned.

Port Harcourt is the state capital city of Rivers State in Nigeria. Its 2016 population is estimated at 1,865,000. If that was a European or North American city, we'd probably have lots of content and maybe enough editors to sustain a portal, but Wikipedia's systemic bias makes that less likely in Africa. Sad, but that's how it it is, and as showcases for content, portals have to follow articles not lead them.

The head article Port Harcourt is maybe overrated at B-class, but with lots of links and the navbox Template:Port Harcourt, it's a much better navigational hub than the sockmaster's abandoned mini-portal. Plus the head article has way more pictures than the portal. Per WP:PORTAL's guiding principle is that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this another example of portal as severely degraded version of main article.

I seriously doubt that we will l ever have enough skilled, non-socking editors to maintain a portal on this topic, let alone create enough quality content to feed it. But without clear, broad-consensus guidelines on portal scope, I can't say this is definitively too narrow ... so I propose that this sockpuppeteer's portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Port Harcourt is a state capital, with nearly 2 million population, so could conceivably form a decent portal basis. The header article is ok, aside from one orange-level section tag that could be replaced by requesting further citations. There seems to be a fair amount of Port Harcourt coverage. However I tend to agree with the nominator that after the blocking of the creator, there's a very limited chance anyone is going to pick this up and develop it, and with a total of 8 articles it does not meet the minimum threshold. (And the prize for Worst Selected Picture would be stiffly contested. I don't think this would even be a finalist.) So I'm leaning delete unless anyone comes forward to offer to develop it. Has the Wikiproject been notified? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - When EA asks about a WikiProject, do they mean WT:WikiProject Nigeria? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: That seems the most likely to cough up a replacement maintainer, yes. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
- Yet another portal created, not by a portalspammer, but by a spammer.
- Yet another portal created by a blocked account, so not likely to be maintained by a good-faith editor.
- WP:TNT
- Recommend Salt to Extended-Confirmed Protection so that a portal can only be created by an experienced neutral editor.
- It isn't clear who is paying for the portal, maybe the Tourist Bureau, but it probably doesn't matter.
- Notify the WikiProject.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about salting, but we could really do with a Portals for Creation process. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I have not yet commented on this nomination, but I had to take time to endorse that idea. A Wikipedia:Portals for Creation process would make the entire portal system so much easier. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Someone else was suggesting this too & getting support; I don't know whether that discussion got anywhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: ETA: The Signpost helpfully just linked to the discussion I recalled but could not find: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Version 3(?): Portals for creation and (maybe, though irrelevant here) X3. Discussion seems to have petered out, but perhaps the Signpost link will rejuvenate it? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another not-a-portal, 22 subpages, created 2013-12-13 17:29:58 by User:Afrowildchild. To be deleted, in order to make place for the creation from scratch of a decent portal... if anyone get such intent. Portal:Port Harcourt. Pldx1 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 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.

April 29, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Monmouth

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Monmouth

Abandoned, manually-made micro-portal on a narrow topic.

Monmouth is the county town of Monmouthshire in Wales. Its 2011 census population was only 10,508. We have repeatedly deleted portals on much bigger cities for failing the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

This one has not attracted maintainers. It was created in 2012, and last had any content update in 2015 when 4 DYK pages were created. Since then it has had only formatting edits, and Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Monmouth shows only 1 Selected article, 2 Selected biographies, and 3 selected pictures. So it has basically been abandoned for 4 years.

The B-class head article Monmouth is a vastly better way of exploring the topic. It has far more links, an infobox, and 43 images rather than the portal's two. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this is another case of a portal being a massively degraded version of the head article.

Many portals on much broader topics have been neglected for even longer. There is no reason to expect that after 7 years, a zealous maintainer is going to appear out of nowhere ... and in the meantime it averages only 5 pageviews per day, placing at rank #1232 out of the list of pageviews for all 1502 portals, with less than half the abysmal portal median of 11 pageviews per day.

Just delete it, and don't try re-creating it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the ongoing debate over Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York, I'm not sure this is clearly too narrow a topic, especially as it's a county town with a long history: nearly 5000 years if one believes the article, and there was certainly a Roman fort there/thereabouts. Nevertheless it is narrow. The head article is reasonable, tagged B/C class; I note its images are mainly located in two galleries, which are tagged and could well be removed any day soon, so that's not necessarily a good reason to prefer it. The portal looks pleasant and well organised, and its content, such as it is, is seems well chosen. However, at present there only seems to be one selected article, 2 bios & 2 images. Leaning delete, but if anyone wants to take this over and expand I'd be willing to change my mind. Has the Wikiproject been notified? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During a road trip, Horatio Nelson visited Monmouth and numerous other towns and villages

Espresso Addict, given the large number of portals on demonstrably very broad topics which rot from a decade of neglect, I think it's long past time to abandon the hope that a small towns is a suitable topic for a portal. The Briarcliff Manor portal is the product of one editor with severe WP:OWNership issues who is micro-documenting everything on a tiny town, and I am unpersuaded that it has created good articles, let alone a useful portal. even if that one is kept an exception, allowing it to be a precedent for keeping niche portals will simply perpetuate the problem of efforts being spread too thinly, degrading portalspace as a whole.

And even if he head article was stripped of its image galleries, it still has 16 other pictures, which is over 5 times as many as the micro-portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another fake portal. Comparing with Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York is absolutely enlightening, indeed. Briarcliff Manor provides a functional slideshow, while this one provides nothing. TWO biographies, what a shame. But let us open them. Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster, born at Grosmont Castle (Monmouthshire). Little is known about his childhood (and nothing else). In Nov 1801, Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson and two other embarked on a tour of England and Wales, visiting Birmingham, Warwick, Gloucester, Swansea, Monmouth and numerous other towns and villages. Whaow ! Monmouth Portal. Pldx1 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Half-tracks

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Half-tracks

Abandoned, underdeveloped, manual portal on a narrow-scope topic.

Half-track is a narrow topic. These are specialised vehicles, mostly used for military purposes. Wikipedia has only 36 non-stub articles on them, in Category:Half-tracks and its subcats, and Template:Half-tracks provides good navigation between them all.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Half-tracks show only 5 selected articles and 5 selected pictures. Each of those ten pages was created at the same time as the portal, in late Feb / early March 2015, since when the whole portal has been abandoned apart from drive-by formatting tweaks and name changes from "Half-track" to the plural form "Half-tracks". The head article has way more links, so it's a better navigational hub; and it also has 37 images, compared with the portal's 5.

Per WP:PORTAL says that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but as well as being narrow, this is massively degraded version of the main page.

WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This hasn't attracted maintainers, and nor has it attracted readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got an average of only 5 pageviews day. That places it less half the abysmal median of 9 views/day for all currently-extant portals; it's ranked at #123 out of 1502 in theJan–Feb 2019 list of portal pageviews. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a maintained portal, and a very narrow focus. Creator is no longer active (after changing username). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There look to be only 5 selected articles plus 5 images, which does not meet the minimum threshold. I would think this is a narrow topic but transport and military are two areas I don't edit at all, and seem popular with readers and editors, so willing to change my mind if anyone offers to maintain and expand it. Have the relevant Wikiprojects been notified? @BrownHairedGirl:, I thought the median was 11? I know you wrote 9 at one point in the portal talk page discussion, but I assumed that was also a mistake. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Espresso Addict, the median was 11, but after the latest round of XFD closures the list has shrunk, and the median is now 12. I take that as good news: it confirms that the cull is removing the least-read portals.

In this case, I don't think a portal maintainer would help. With only 36 non-stub articles, that's too narrow a set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that there might be more articles hanging around somewhere. But yes, I think I'd need some persuading that this topic was truly viable. On the increasing median, I imagine that most of the navbox-based automated ones that are being deleted weren't being read much; their topics were often rather bijou and their linkage not extensive. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old portal, 18 subpages, created 2015-02-24 00:31:43 by User:Tomandjerry211. No apparent maintainer, too narrow scope. Portal:Half-tracks. Pldx1 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tintin

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tintin

I view this as not meeting WP:POG, as the topic's overall scope is not broad enough. This is an automated portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Automated portal which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Tintin, of which is therefore a redundant fork. This is exactly the same issues which led to the deletion of the similar portals created by @The Transhumanist. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

The topic is also too narrow, failing the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Good catch, @Northamerica1000.

Just delete it, and don't allow re-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree that it may not be broad enough, your suggestion of WP:SALTing the portal is rather hurtful. I did put some work into this portal, including manually curating the images.--Auric talk 12:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually mean WP:SALT. I meant that this is not one of the many portal discussions where I have proposed something along the lines of "delete without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time". I doubt that WP:SALTing will be needed.

But anyway, do see WP:PLEASEDONT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending to beg, I was wondering if my work meant that a curated recreation wasn't on the table.--Auric talk 15:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thank User:Northamerica1000, who is normally a portal advocate, for taking an initiative to clean up some of the more obviously unnecessary portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see arguments that the breadth of subject might be wide enough, given our coverage per Category:Tintin, the assessment of the head article as level 4 vital, and the statement from the FA The Adventures of Tintin: "The series was one of the most popular European comics of the 20th century." However, there's a clear consensus for deleting portals created in this fashion. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the portal scope is broad enough. Category:Tintin does have a lot of pages in it but lots of them don't have much relevance to Tintin (e.g. Loch Lomond distillery is included because a Tintin character drinks it). Furthermore WP:POG requires the portal articles to be "diverse", and an awful lot of the articles in scope are about Tintin characters or stories, which I don't think makes for much diversity. Hut 8.5 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created 2018-11-23 11:49:56, no subpages, maintained by User:Auric. Not a sufficiently large topic, nothing more than a lower quality duplicate of the corresponding template: Portal:Tintin. Pldx1 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rodeo

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rodeo

A woefully incomplete portal created in January 2019 that is presently not functional as a means to navigate topics. It is lacking too much content to qualify for existence at this time per WP:POG guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The editor who created the portal also created an incomplete WikiProject Rodeo and performed other inconsistent actions. When consulted about the items, he had a temper tantrum basically, and announced he was leaving Wikipedia, which he has essentially done. I concur with removing the incomplete portal. I am an editor of all things rodeo since 2015. Thank you. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a non-portal, since it provides navigation to nowhere. The topic is probably to narrow to sustain a portal per WP:POG criterion that that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

Good catch, @Northamerica1000. It looks to me like someone was just testing the portal-creation template .. so do you think this qualifies for WP:G2 speedy deletion as a test page? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since it looks like a real portal, it isn't an obvious G2, but it looks like a portal that doesn't do anything, and we are here, so delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to have been abandoned unfinished. No prejudice to recreation of a proper portal; I have no opinion on whether the topic would prove wide enough. I don't think any speedy category is applicable here. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 1 subpages, created 2019-01-17 22:47:19 by User:Kyerjay, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Rodeo. Pldx1 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eurovision Song Contest

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Eurovision Song Contest

(convenience link: subject article Eurovision Song Contest)

(WP:WikiProject Eurovision courtesy talkpage notified).

Delete Wikipedia has a ton of content on the Eurovision Song Contest, but the question is, is this multi-page portal - with one-at-a-time articles and pictures, news that has not been updated in 8 months, only 5 DYK items, no link to featured content - a good way to organize that content? I think the low viewer statistics say "no", which is one reason a subject this narrow is contrary to the breadth-of-subject area requirement of the WP:POG guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The well-developed B-class head article Eurovision Song Contest with its navbox Template:Eurovision Song Contest is vastly better way of navigating the topic than the this mini-portal with a mere 8 selected pictures and 5 selected articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: As has been explained to you countless times before, portals are not just navigation tools, they are showcases of related content not just links to other pages. This constantly repeated refusal to get the point is very disappointing behaviour from someone who knows better. Waggers TALK 13:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers, as has been explained to you countless times before, the policy at WP:PORTAL is that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This one does not enhance; it degrades.

Your constantly repeated refusal to get the point is very disappointing behaviour from someone who knows better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "main page" is not a navigation page. Which part of that point are you struggling to get? Waggers TALK 14:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the word "enhanced" would you like me to explain? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. What specifically do you expect to see on a portal that makes it an "enhanced main page", and what do you expect not to see? On its own, "enhanced main page" doesn't really mean much and you clearly have a particular interpretation of it that would be useful to know about. Waggers TALK 12:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As BHG says, articles with navboxes work as well if not better to navigate than portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that one measures topic breadth by measuring topic breadth, not by measuring reader hits on a portal. On those grounds, the Eurovision with a history back to 1956, ~50 countries involved, and a huge set of wiki articles in Category:Eurovision Song Contest is clearly broad enough. Audience figures of 100–600 million would tend to suggest potential reader interest. The news in an annual event is likely to go in fits, so 8 months out of date is not necessarily a problem, though this year's seems to be happening in a couple of weeks, so there ought to be ongoing news at present. I don't know how out of date that makes it, but no more than a month or so? That said, the portal has only 5 articles and 8 images, so unless someone from the Wikiproject is willing to update and expand, I am leaning delete. The Wikiproject has been notified and looks active, so let's see... Espresso Addict (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs updating to the new low maintenance, transclusion-based format, but needing some work is no reason for deletion. As the OP points out, there's plenty of scope here. WaggersTALK 10:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Waggers:, portalspace is littered with topics which potentially have enough scope, but where there is a long-term lack of editors to build on and maintain a rough start of a portal. Plenty of this junk has already been through one or MFDs in the last 13 years, and kept with claims of "could be expanded" ... but remains neglected because editors are not interested in expanding and maintaining it. It's time to stop applying this faith-based logic, because it leads to readers being lured to pages whose existence promises the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but which practice are just massively-degraded versions of the head article.

When a topic is as well-covered with interlinked articles, lists and navboxes as this one is, a very high bar is set for a portal which actually plans to offer an enhanced main page. If and when someone actually wants to create and maintain a portal good enough to vault that high bar, we can look at it ... but the chances of that happening are slim, and the current mini-portal will be little help in building it, so there's no need to continue luring readers to waste their time on this junk, which is really just a poor portal on the 2018 contetst. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the issue the WikiProject have been addressing by introducing automated portals. This kind of portal doesn't need editors to build on and maintain the portal; TheTransHumanist's idea was that by using navboxes as the source of selected article sections, a portal like this wouldn't even need someone to add articles to the portal because anything added to one of the selected navboxes would automatically be included. My personal view is that a little more thought should go into it, but it doesn't need much.

You can't have it both ways. One moment you're arguing against the automated approach the project has taken under TTH's leadership which solves the maintenance issue, and the next you're moaning about "a long-term lack of editors to build on and maintain a... portal" should an automated portal go back to the old way of requiring manual maintenance as a result of your objection to automation.

"Portalspace is littered with topics which..." is a prime example of an WP:AON argument. This discussion is about one particular portal, which I am happy to step in and maintain - so there's no lack of maintainers in this case.

As regards referring to other editor's efforts as "junk", please consider being a bit more WP:CIVIL. Waggers TALK 13:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers, I am absolutely not trying to have it both ways. I have been repeatedly noting that there have two failed models of portals: the underdeveloped/unmaintained manual model which TTH rightly identified as a problem, and the clone-another-page automated approach which he mass-implemented as a failed remedy for the first problem.

My starting point in this is not "what's the least worst of the current ways of implementing a portal on a given topic". My question is whether this portal page actually meets the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This clearly doesn't do that, and stand by my description of it as junk. The hard work which good faith editors have put into it has not produced a page which offers much value to readers.

WP:AON is about articles, where policy basically values any content on a notable topic as better than no content. But portals are not articles and they are not content; they are a navigational device to link and showcase existing content, on the principle that they are an enhanced version of the head article. If they don't enhance, readers shouldn't be lured into wasting time visiting them. One of the key reasons that we nearly had deletion of all portals at WP:ENDPORTALS is that so many of them are underdeveloped/unmaintained junk which don't add value. That's one of the reasons why readers don't want them. Web portals have generally plummeted since their late-1990s heyday, because of rich interlinking and powerful search, so not many readers want them ... and those who do want en.wp portals have been confronted for years with a sea of mediocrity and junk where the islands of quality are sparse and undifferentiated on the label. That why pageviews for portals are so overwhelmingly dire.

I agree that some aspects of automation have potential, esp the extraction of live excerpts of MOS:LEADs rather than the hideous content-forking of the multi-subpage model. But policy is that a portal needs to actually add value, and this page doesn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AON is about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That is not limited to AfD deletion discussions, so AON is not "about articles". That much is made clear in the introduction at the top of the page.

Your argument can be summarised as this: "there are two types of portals, neither are fit for purpose, so all portals should be deleted." The "all portals should be deleted" discussion has been and gone, you should really have accepted that by now. And the premise is completely incorrect; the old format works if the portal is maintained, and the new format works with much less regular maintenance.

Wikipedia is not a battleground and it's time for this "war on portals" to stop. You don't like them, I get that; but others do, so live and let live. Waggers TALK 14:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AON is very clear that it's only about articles. Other XFDs, including RFD, TFD and CFD, routinely delete pages because they don't serve their purpose. I am surprised that you seem unaware of this. If AON was applied there, those processes would grind to a halt.

Please don't put words in my mouth. It's very rude, and also very unhelpful to WP:CONSENSUS-formation. If you want to understand someone's position, ask questions instead if leaping to unfounded conclusions. I am not arguing that all portals should be deleted, as you would see if visited the MFDs where I have !voted keep, or read any of the longer discussions.

As to "war", you are the one in "battle" mode, pursuing false binaries and misrepresenting others. It's not helping your case.

I will happy to discuss your specific points and when you choose to actually engage in discussion, rather than making angry accusations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could somebody explain why "news that has not been updated for 8 months" is a problem for a portal on an annual event? Waggers TALK 13:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because news on the contest happens year around; see, just as 2 examples, Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 and 2019 Eurovision Song Contest#Ticket sales controversy. If the portal is not going to pick up recent news as it happens, how is it performing as an "enhanced Main Page", as WP:P requires? Hint: it's not. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've updated the portal to pick related items from the Current Events portal, so the first of those is now included. The latter doesn't have a Current Events subpage (yet) so doesn't appear, but that can be fixed. Waggers TALK 15:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the pattern we have seen with so many portals over so many years. It is abandoned for ages, then when deletion is proposed, a brief flurry of activity ensues to support claims of "look, it's maintained now". Then the rescuer(s) move on to other things, and portal rots again because hardly anybody even views it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Waggers announced recent updates to the news section, I just went to have a look. Every refresh gives me the same two articles: Ukraine in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 and Eurovision Song Contest 2018. AS if there hadn't been a few dozen other selection events in the last few months.

This is why I repeat that the head article and its navbox are much better for navigation. They don't mislead readers into thinking that the only significant event since the 2018 contest has been the Ukrainian selection.

This I why I describe the portal as a degraded version of the head article ... and why readers don't use the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news section takes the latest items that mention "Eurovision" from Portal:Current events. Refreshing it isn't going to change what's there unless somebody adds something new to Portal:Current events, and it isn't intended to change with every refresh. It will change as relevant current events are added to Wikipedia. A portal's job isn't to create content but to reflect what we already have, and it is accurately reflecting the latest items at P:CE that relate to the topic. Waggers TALK 09:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Portals reflect content, but this portal is rubbish at reflecting the content we do actually have, and instead it is displaying a big box pointing to the lack of content in another portal. I know how of why the news section comes to be such junk is because most Eurovision articles are not included in P:CE ... but that doesn't alter the fact that that automated section is junk. We do have some decent coverage of at least the outcomes of the national selection processes, but this portal has been but in a way which doesn't display it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting problem which I look forward to exploring solutions for. It isn't a reason for deletion. Waggers TALK 12:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to [wmflabs], this deletion discussion is the greatest day ever of this portal: a peak at 55 views! Whaow ! This gives a great part of the 274 views scored in the LAST TWO YEARS. When using the TWO YEARS period 2017-03-30---2019-03-30, this reduces to a grand total of 147 page views, i.e. an average of 0.201 views per day (five days to score ONE view). Whaow! What a great hill to die, what a great occasion to use the expression war on portals! While saying audience figures of 100–600 million would tend to suggest potential reader interest seems rather cruel in the context. Moreover, when being one of the 274 happy few clicks in two years, one only gets a navigation tool that is largely less efficient than the main article. Pldx1 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) to be restated since $21>0.201$ Pldx1 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
- Not sure if the pageview data need to be taken with a very large grain of salt, since until very recently the portal was at Portal:Eurovision, and I don't think wmflabs accounts for the portal move. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian is correct. Here's the pageviews for Portal:Eurovision for the calendar years 2017 and 2018: average 21 per day.

Still abysmal, as with nearly every portal, but a lot better than the figures which @Pldx1 posted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here is the source of the mishap: [search insource]. I was saying to my-self: these are too low to be true, but I haven't searched for more details. My bad ! By the way: what so special occurred 2018-12-09 ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to [wmflabs], the user views are as large as 26 per day (and not the abysmal result related to Eurovision_Song_Contest). It remains that saying audience figures of 100–600 million would tend to suggest potential reader interest seems rather cruel even in this context. Moreover, the resulting navigation tool is largely less efficient than the main article. Pldx1 (talk) 19:35, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/State-level road portals

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State-level road portals

(convenience links: subject articles California roads, Maryland roads, Michigan highways (redirects to Michigan State Trunkline Highway System), Washington roads)

Delete Multi-page portals that are narrow redundant subsets of the existing Portal:U.S. roads. Even though three of these were Featured Portals when that process was operating, they are far from that now (California has a big Lua error), and more importantly they fall far short of the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @UnitedStatesian:, this statement about the California roads portal having a Lua error is misleading. This code to an unrelated Lua module which broke the code was made 19 hours before the nomination. Using this fact to imply that the California roads portal is not being maintained is dishonest and I ask you to retract that statement. --Rs chen 7754 00:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian, I am sure that your statement was made in good faith. My addition of tracking categories had some unforseen glitches on larger portals, which have all now been resolved. As @Rschen7754 notes, the Lua error was my fault, not the fault of the portal.

I apologise to both of you for this error which I caused through an unforeseen scaling problem ... but Rschen7754, please don't call UnitedStatesian dishonest for drawing the perfectly reasonable conclusion that the flaw was in the portal. Sorry again to both of you, and please don't let the egg I splattered on my face trigger a falling out between you two fine editors. If a joint exercise of pieing me would help restore goodwill between you two, I'll happily supply the pies

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "dishonest" is not quite the right word, but if it were me, I would have looked more closely at what was causing the Lua error before insinuating fault on the portal maintainers. As it was, even though I brought the portal to featured status I wasn't even notified of this discussion. It seems that a lot of portals are being carelessly nominated for deletion in a war against portals (and I've skimmed the numerous threads on AN(I)). Maybe there were some crummy portals created en masse by one editor, but carelessly going through and mass-MFDing portals that people actually maintain and care about is not the proper solution for this. I strongly urge User:UnitedStatesian to reconsider this nomination. --Rs chen 7754 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put your mind at ease, I assure you that I took great care in this nomination, starting with actually reading the WP:POG guideline. I for one am not engaging in any "war against portals" (and your use of that phrase indicates a remarkable assumption of bad faith), as indicated by my numerous !keep votes and continued effort to improve the portals that cover subjects that are uncontroversially broad enough to meet the WP:POG guideline, an effort that is helped dramatically if the portal space actually conforms to that guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated any of these portals was not being maintained. Can't retract a statement I never made. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough content to sustain a portal. Plenty of articles that can be featured as the selected article, and enough pictures and DYK hooks that can be cycled. Dough4872 20:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Michigan has over 200 articles at the GA or higher level (32 FA, 4 A/GA, 188 GA, 1 GAN/B) plus the FLs, providing years worth of selected articles. There are dozens of quality images yet to be used, and the DYK sets that are supposed to be recycling based on a couple hundred DYKs hooks. (Dough4872, you need to get back on that.) That's plenty of content to sustain a portal.
The other states' portals may not have the same breadth of content, but they have enough to warrant retention. Imzadi 1979 → 21:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are the portals being actively maintained? The originator of California has not edited in six months. The originators of the other portals edit, but that may or may not mean that they are maintaining the portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator of the portal to featured portal status certainly is. --Rs chen 7754 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are the portals the original portals developed by a developer, or have they been downgraded to some sort of automated portal structure by the portal platoon? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been keeping the Maryland portal updated. I pick a selected article every month while the pictures and DYK hooks randomly rotate between different selections every time the portal is loaded. This concept can be applied to all the portals (even for the selected articles) in order to keep maintenance to a minimum. Dough4872 23:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- California was purposefully designed to not require updating. --Rs chen 7754 00:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Michigan portal is the original, and it's kept updated, or at least my end is. Dough4872 assists with the DYKs, and it appears he misses the last update cycle. Imzadi 1979 → 01:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, need to get back into updating the DYKs, though I would suggest doing something like the Maryland portal and having several pages of different hooks that rotate randomly each time the portal is loaded. The article and picture can still be updated monthly if desired. Dough4872 01:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is certainly enough content to sustain these portals. --Rs chen 7754 00:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter is well defined, albeit niche as a general topic. Admittedly I have been prioritizing other projects, but the Washington portal can be easily restocked with a number of FAs/GAs that have recently been promoted, not to mention my photos. Sounder Bruce 06:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all California, Maryland & Michigan are former featured portals. All four have enormous amounts of featured/good content. There seems rather little deletion rationale, beyond a Lua error that BrownHairedGirl introduced accidentally. Enough people have emerged from the woodwork to suggest that the portals are currently being maintained. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per all of the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

- Old portal, 82 subpages, created 2012-04-04 09:55:10 by User:Jj98. No apparent maintainer. Portal:California roads

- Old portal, 134 subpages, created 2012-04-19 01:07:12 by User:Dough4872. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Maryland roads

- Old portal, 51 subpages, created 2011-02-13 00:37:47 by User:Admrboltz. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Washington roads

- Maintained, 251 subpages, created 2011-05-19 02:24:05 by User:Imzadi1979, maintained by User:Imzadi1979. Portal:Michigan highways.

-remark 1: the best way to say that a portal is maintained, is to document the ad hoc template at the top of the code of the portal. This looks like {{Portal maintenance status|date=December 2018 |subpages= |nonstandard= |manual=yes |maintainer1=Imzadi1979 |maintainer2=Dough4872 }}. Moreover, filling the subpages= field could help the passerby (and the survival of the said subpages).

-remark 2: From [wmflabs], it seems that the views per day of these four portals are respectively: 8,7,4,3. Therefore, it seems that there is certainly enough content to sustain these portals has no influence on there is certainly enough readers to read these portals. But how to be sure that a miracle will not occur ?

-remark 3: who knows what caused the 2019-03-09 peak ?

Pldx1 (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: I maintain the California roads portal. I do not know how to say this more clearly. --Rs chen 7754 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Rschen7754. As you have already suggested The nominator of the portal to featured portal status certainly is, I had no doubt about that. And after your I maintain the California roads portal, I have even less doubts. But the present MfD will close at the end of the week. Thus it would be easier for the next passerby to find this information at the top of the Portal:California roads page, instead of reading, at the very top, {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018|broken=minor|note=Has no root article}}. Moreover, adding and filling a subpages= item, could help protecting the subpages. Be assured that I am not the one who invented this template, you can check its history. Pldx1 (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: Very well, however, when I've used templates like that I've been accused of WP:OWN. --Rs chen 7754 18:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: If --and only if-- you are ever facing someone who has so much difficulties to distinguish between owning and maintaining, then put my name as maintainer4= (and ping me, in order that I become aware of) ! Disclaimer: I already know that Highway Sixty One is not part of this series. It would have been a plus! Pldx1 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - These portals are being maintained. Road networks are a broad area for editors who are interested in road networks. Maryland is the smallest of the four states, but I know that one can get lost on Maryland roads, and that Maryland really has three disjoint sets of roads (due to its peculiar geography) and Michigan has two disjoint sets of roads. I also know that I am personally unlikely to give a Strong Keep to any portal, but the case has been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. - I subscribe to the maintainer theory of portals (if it has an active maintainer, then it probably meets WP:POG). I have no honest clue how it has been done, but P:MDRD has been maintained consistently for SIX YEARS. I am utterly baffled by this accomplishment. For six years, every month, there has been new content to visit at Portal:Maryland roads. For the record, I found this MFD because of Dough4872's support vote in WP:ENDPORTALS... which semi-ironically states: As sad as it is, no one seems to care about portals anymore. Dough4872 then included a link to P:MDRD which is where I saw the deletion notice. The others seem to have content as well, and I feel this states more about Wikipedia then on portals tbh. Until now the prominence of US State highways in File:Size of English Wikipedia Broken Down 2008.png has escaped me, but I think it finally makes sense. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think that these are examples of the Wikipedia phenomenon of "narrow topic covered in copious detail". That doesn't make it a broad topic per WP:POG, but on the other hand they do seem to be well-maintained.

If we were having a priorities-based discussion on which portals should exist, starting from a clean sheet, I am pretty sure that these would be so far down the list that they'd not be built for another decade or more.

But we're not having that discussion here. So unless and until there is some broad consensus to remove well-maintained low-priority portals, these should stay.

But ... please please please somebody clean up that forest of sub-pages. There are now much better ways of transcluding the lead of an article chosen at random from a curated list. Those semi-automated methods avoid the content-forking and the massive vulnerability that goes with having so many under-watched pages, and save a lot of work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:49, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Meghan Trainor

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Meghan Trainor

Another abandoned, manual non-portal on a narrow topic, in this case the singer Meghan Trainor.

Special:PrefixIndex/PortalMeghan Trainor shows that it has only ONE selected article, ONE selected album, and ONE Selected song. So it is not a portal, just a static single issue of a slim magazine. It was created in May 2015, and after 3 years it hasn't advanced at all.

Trainor is not a huge star, and her output is not huge. In recent weeks we have deleted many other portals for individual people whose life and works form a much broader topic.

The navbox Template:Meghan Trainor and the head article Meghan Trainor each provide better navigation than this static page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Remember making this just because other female singers had one. But Trainor's popularity has since waned, and it is highly unlikely she will reach the article count/threshold to warrant a portal. If Portal:Demi Lovato is Mfd’d as well, and the Ariana Grande Portal is already deleted, then I can make peace with this being deleted too.—N Ø 18:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The originator of the portal appears to be saying that the subject is JAPF, Just Another Pretty Face. Actually, the creator and I agree that Trainor is more than that, but not a superstar and there is no consensus as to whether superstars warrant portals. No need. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old draft of a portal, 11 subpages, created 2015-05-06 05:53:23 by User:MaranoFan. Agree with creator. Portal:Meghan Trainor. Pldx1 (talk) 11:55, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Wikipedia as a digital rhetoric platform

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: Userfy. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Wikipedia as a digital rhetoric platform

Delete This is a personal essay that is not going anywhere as an article. No need to wait the 6 months for a G13. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Projectify - I never heard or read that until now, but this can be a first time. Move to WP space. Doesn't need deleting. This is a valid WP essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to userspace. No need for this page (which refers to "my motivation") to be in project space. DexDor^(talk) 19:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Valid essay. Project related and with meaning. Unusual for it to come from a non-editor, but reasonable. Move to User:ChuckLJY/Wikipedia as a digital rhetoric platform and tag with {{essay}}. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 13 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Football in India

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Football in India

An abandoned non-portal. It's simply a static display of a portal shell, whose list of subpages (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Football in India) has ONE selected article, ONE selected picture, and ONE selected biography.

The topic may be broad enough to support a portal, but the current non-portal is a waste of the time of readers. So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

Notes

This non-portal was created in 2013. By the time it was tagged for the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC in April 2018,[11] it still had only ONE selected article, ONE selected picture
I found this non-portal in Category:Random portal component with less than 2 available subpages, one of a series of automatically-populated tracking categories which I created earlier today: see Category:Portal with subpages tracking.
Please note the disclaimer on those tracking categories. Software limitations means that they should be used only as a starting point for careful scrutiny of the portal's wikitext and its list of subpages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
- - The originator of this portal created this portal and made a few related edits and departed from Wikipedia all in the course of a few days. Duh.
  - Not sure what a non-portal is, but I think it is really a non-portal portal. In the 1980s in the United States, there were financial institutions known as non-bank banks. They at least paid interest on deposits.
  - The usual conditions to re-generation apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination statement, except that I'm not seeing the singular biography; that section seems commented out. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old draft of a portal, 16 subpages, created 2013-01-14 06:26:52 by User:ACMohunBagan.ChelseaFC. ONE promise of a biography, but this is only an empty page. Portal:Football in India. Pldx1 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kandahar

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kandahar

Narrow topic, fails WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

This should be a broad topic. Kandahar is a city of over 500,000 people, and one of the oldest known human settlements. Wikipedia should have lots of substantive articles on this long history, but for all the usual systemic bias reasons, en.wp's coverage is very thin, both in quantity and quality.

I did some checks on what's available. Excluding articles tagged as stubs and Category:Kandahar detention facility detainees, there are 20 biographies and 22 non-biographical articles (Lists on the talk page). However, most of these articles are start-class, and a significant chunk have cleanup tags.

Here's WikiProject Afghanistan's rating for the 42 articles:

10 not tagged
4 tagged but unassessed
7 stub-class
16 start-class
5 C-class: Kandahar, Kandahar International Airport, Old Kandahar, Battle of Kandahar (2011), Mughal–Safavid War (1649–53)
0 B-class, GA-class, A-class, or FA-class

I'm sure the assessments are out of date, but even so that's clearly a small and poor set to build a showcase for. And out-of-date assessments are fairly good indicator of under-maintained articles.

We should build the content first, and only then make a portal to show it off. This one is cart before the horse.

Note that when I found this portal, it acknowledged only one selected article. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Kandahar found three more, which I have added.[12] BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have doubts as to whether the city is an appropriately broad topic, in spite of its age and of the recent battles. This portal does not make the case anyway. As BHG says, built the content first. For some reason, the portal platoon thinks that portals are a way to encourage the creation of content. Maybe content-building in general should be slowed down, with 5.7 million articles, and we should be improving existing content. In any case, this one is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kandahar in principle is a decent topic for a portal; as the nominator notes, it's among the most significant cities in the world historically. I think one has to be very cautious using project assessments, as they are often laughably out of date. Some of the start assessments might even date from before C-class existed. I spot-checked a double handful of the links provided on the talk page at random, and 8/10 were broadly start to C class, without major issues, and with occasional flights towards possible B class eg Nur Jahan, which was tagged as start, but looks B class and was used last year at main-page OTD (I have reassessed for those projects I felt capable of doing so). @BrownHairedGirl: By the way, 2009 Kandahar bombing & Operation Baawar are clear stubs and project tagged as such. The only way one can find out if this is a portal-worthy topic, would be to investigate in far more detail than either I or BrownHairedGirl have done. All that said, however, the existing portal has only 4 articles, 1 image, and a couple of DYKs that look to have been made up, rather than harvested from the main-page archives. Unless someone is prepared to take this over and maintain it, I'm leaning delete. Has the Wikiproject been informed? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching those two, Espresso Addict. They weren't tagged as stubs on the face of the article, which was my basis for excluding stubs (because tags on the face of the article are more likely to be removed if no longer applicable than ratings on the talk page). I have now tagged those articles with {{Afghanistan-stub}}, and struck them from the list.

That leaves us with only 40 non-stub articles in total, of variable quality, and a WikiProject which is clearly not proactive in maintaining and assessing them. So I am surprised by your equivocation about deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always lean towards keeping anything that isn't actively problematic. If a good-faith maintainer were to come here and make reasonable promises, I'd be minded to throw them a rope. But if no-one comes, I'm comfortable with deletion, as indicated by bolding it above. If I really wanted to vote to keep, I would do so explicitly. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old draft of a portal, 19 subpages, created 2017-01-28 16:56:13 by User:Af420. Quite empty, to be deleted to make place to a decent portal, if a team wants to gather and create one such decent one. Portal:Kandahar. Pldx1 (talk) 12:16, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Oceanography

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Oceanography

(convenience link: subject article Oceanography)

Delete Another one-click-created single page portal that 1) suffers from all the shortcomings of that class of portals and 2) does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline, and 3) is redundant to Portal:Nautical. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This pseudo-portal draws its article list solely from the navbox Template:Physical oceanography, of which it is therefore a redundant fork, just like the thousands of similar portal created by @The Transhumanist (TTH). (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals by created TTH: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another single-page portal created during the wave of reckless portal creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BrownHairedGirl; I disagree strongly with the deletion rationales mentioned by the nominator, but the consensus against portals created in his manner is clear. No effort has gone into trying to make this one work, per the fact that the DYKs & news are looking for oceanography which isn't ever going to find anything much. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't care who created it or how it was created or how quickly it was made, as none of those are reasons to delete. It's a good start and we should encourage contributions like this. Oceanography is a wide topic that deserves a portal. It's most certainly a different topic than Portal:Nautical.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, @Paul McDonald. Approximately 4,000 contributions like this have been deleted in the last 6 weeks. (No, I kid you not: four thousand.)

There is a very strong and broad consensus that this type of pseudo-portal is junk. Anyone who wants to create a real portal on the topic can recreate this in seconds: just enter {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, and save. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been one to drink the consensus WP:KOOLAID. But here's a question: if anyone can "just enter {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, and save" wouldn't that be better-quicker-easier-than running loads of xFDs? I mean, if I did it now for this portal, would that (possibly) be enough? At least on selected portal topics that make sense (I've reviewed the volume of portals created by the enthusiastic portal creator and I can't say that I would have done that volume that way, but "all those others" is a different topic than "this one").--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. WP:CONSENSUS is a core policy, so I'm surprised to see anyone describing it as Kool-Aid. And I think you miss the point of that essay. The principle of deleting automated portals forked from navboxes was overwhelmingly agreed by a huge turnout at one of the biggest mass-MFDs ever, and it's disruptive to try reopening that debate only two weeks later.

Anyway, @Paul McDonald, sorry that my prev reply wasn't v clear. What I meant is that the current pseudo-portal was created with {{subst:Basic portal start page}}. So if anyone wants to build a new real portal but somehow thinks that recreating this junk would be a good starting point, then they can re-create it after deletion simply by just enter {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, and save.

My earlier reply could be read to give the false impression that this technique would magically create a real portal, which it doesn't. Sorry for the confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can and does change. There should never be a problem in speaking against consensus, for that is the only way that consensus can change. Blindly following consensus is, in my view, not the best way to discuss issues in Wikipedia. So I tend to ask a lot of questions. For example: Presuming that the deletion of 4,000 other portals was a good move (and I'm not saying it wasn't) what kind of impact should that have on the discussion on the future of this portal? It seems the arguments are all related to the editor who created it or the content within it instead of the actual topic of the portal. Wikipedia is a joint effort. Content issues can be fixed. What's left? What's the reason that deletion is better than editing?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll happily grant to everyone the concept that sometimes a portal/article/whatever can be so bad that no amount of editing can save it IF those supporting deleting this portal will show why that applies to this particular portal and what precisely is so bad about it and how it meets that threshhold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that deletion is better than editing is simple: deletion means that readers stop wasting time on it now.

Why that's so bad is set out in detail at the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two. So far you show no sign of having read those, and it's not a good look for you to demand a custom explanation when you appear not to have read the generic one. If you want to challenge a strong, recently-built current existing consensus, you have an obligation to study it yourself rather than waltz in and demand that people give a private 101 class in it.

Retention means that we lure readers into wasting their time indefinitely, based on an unevidenced hope that someone will a devote tine to building a decent portal in its place, b) do a good job of it, and c) that it will be maintained.

The ease of re-creation means that deletion is basically a cost-free option, whereas retention has significant costs.

This is similar to my creation of Category:1978 in sports in Montana to fill a redlink. Built in a second from {{SportsYearCatUSstate}}, so if it's not needed, just kill it and don't waste my time of yours time even telling me. It can be re-created just as fast if its needed again.

Much the same with this automated page. Easy-come, easy-go. Don't confuse it with a page which has actually had any care and thought pout into it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of any policy or guideline that establishes a threshold on the amount of work required before a portal/article/file/whatever can be kept or deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I am unaware of any policy or guideline which discourages editors from using a bit of commonsense. Your reply is pure wikilawyering, and entirely ignores the benefits to readers and editors, as well as continuing to ignore the broad consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "lawyering", it's just a failure on my part to understand. I'm sorry if my lack of understanding has tested your patience.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to the creation of a manual version in future. I don't have a problem with the scope, I think portals on areas of scholarship are usually fine and thsi is a broad one. However there is a consensus at better attended discussions that automated portals which just reproduce parts of the content of the main article (or a navbox found in it) are not helpful because they don't add content beyond what is found in the main article. Hut 8.5 21:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-10 15:23:12 by User:Pbsouthwood. This useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality deserves deletion. User:Paulmcdonald want to check if, two weeks later, these rationales continue flying. Readers don't want to check, it seems: [wmflabs]. Portal:Oceanography. Pldx1 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 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.

April 28, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Voice blind auditions 1

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Voice blind auditions 1

Appears to be another completely unsourced hoax by the same IP who created the already nominated Draft:The Voice blind auditions 2. I can find no evidence that there was an English Canadian Voice program in 2013, and there is no such program listed in The Voice (franchise). Note the highly suspicious mention of " Miss Promiscuous Nelly Furtado". Meters (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator says, the only reason this is not G3 is that it is an unobvious hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a hoax. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 28 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Taipei

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Taipei

Another automated pseudo-portal, converted from a broken manual portal.

The current version[13] derives from a "restart" of the portal in September 2018[14] by @The Transhumanist (TTH). It draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Districts of Taipei, making this portal simply a fork of that navbox, displaying a random subset of the navbox's linked pages in a bloated format. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

So far as I can determine, the manual version never worked, because it relied on subpages for content which were never created. Here the last version[15] edited (in November 2017‎) by the creator Jstncrdible (talk · contribs), whose contribs list is only 30 edits long, and whose deleted contribs list contains only one draft-space page. So the subpages never existed.

In May 2018‎, TTH tagged[16] the page for WP:P2 speedy deletion. That was declined[17] because Category:Taipei has lots of content. Which is true, but also irrelevant because none of that content was displayed in the portal's sea of redlinks.

The last version before automation[18] (dated 12 August 2018) was still a sea of redlinks.

There is nothing here to keep, so I propose that this pseudo-portal and its subpages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Automated portal replacing broken manual portal that was not worth replacing. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against re-creation of a non-automated, hand-made/curated portal for this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just for the record, P2 was correctly declined (by Kusma): Any portal based on a topic for which there is only a stub header article or fewer than three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to present under the title of that portal. The speedy category doesn't refer to the pages displayed in the portal. (No opinion on the portal.) Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have clarified that it was a correctly-declined speedy request, but that the category is irrelevant outside the speedy context. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with Northamerica1000's proviso. SITH (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old draft of a portal, 3 subpages, created 2017-11-22 09:41:48 by User:Jstncrdible. Then nuked by TTH into a poor fork of a novbox. No apparent maintainer. Portal:Taipei. Pldx1 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 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.

April 27, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Voice blind auditions 2

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) 19:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Voice blind auditions 2

Wikipedia is not a webhost for fantasy reality TV shows. MER-C 12:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This looks like a case of something that doesn't need deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Shania Twain was not a regular coach on The Voice, article says she didn't consult on the show until 2017, and the auditions took place in 2014 in Toronto. There was no The Voice Canada in 2014 only La Voix (season 2) which was in French. The title of the article itself is extremely vague as "Blind auditions 2" could mean any episode 2 (blind auditions episode) in the franchise and season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. Not listed in The Voice (franchise) and I can find no record of an English Canadian Voice in 2014. Draft:The Voice blind auditions 1 by the same IP seems to be another hoax. Meters (talk) 04:32, 28 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI)

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) 19:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Battle For Dream Island (BFDI)

Walled garden of drafts related to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island but weren't nominated for deletion for some reason. Wikipedia is not a webhost for fandom content. MER-C 11:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, well. There appear to be enough socks for a substantial group of foot-soldiers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - On rethinking, not filing an SPI, because these are likely multiple real humans who are all playing some stupid game using Wikipedia as a web host, but Wikipedia is not a web host. Whatever these files are, they are not plausible drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all this kind of stuff needs to go to Fandom Wikia not here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 28 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Korea

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: keep. Technically, this is somewhere between "keep" and "no consensus" as it doesn't seem that the delete arguments have convinced many people or are so overwhelmingly compelling to override the keep arguments. Perhaps the portal needs some maintenance (as some of the delete arguments assert) but that can be done outside of the MFD process Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:North Korea

At Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York we have a portal where 25 [articles] have their leads incorporated in the portal and are maintained up todate. For those who know nothing about Briarcliff Manor, New York, this village started its life circa 1820, its superficy is 15 km2, and its population was 7,867 in the 2010 census. Since North Korea covers an area of circa 120,540 km2, has circa +25,000,000 inhabitants and an history that lasts at least from Goguryeo, a decent portal about North Korea should encompass

25\,articles\times {\frac {20\,centuries}{2\,centuries}}\times {\frac {120540\,km^{2}}{15\,km^{2}}}\times {\frac {25000000\,inhab}{7867\,inhab}}\approx 6\,10^{9}\,articles

Even if someone was arguing that ONE Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard is as worth as any THOUSAND random North Koreans, and that any cm^2 in Briarcliff Manor is as worth as any m^2 of foreign land, there should be 600 articles incorporated in this so called Portal:North Korea. But there are only 12 of them:

The Korean War
The Chaplain–Medic massacre, 1950, Tunam, South Korea
The Hill 303 massacre, 1950, near Taegu, South Korea
The Battle of Nam River, 1950, part of the Battle of Pusan Perimeter
The Battle of Osan, 1950, south of the South Korean capital Seoul
The Battle of Taejon, 1950, (Taejon is 50 minutes south of Seoul by KTX)
The 766th Independent Infantry Regiment, NKPA, disbanded 1950
The Art of the Cinema, 1973, written by Kim Jong-il.
The 6th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), 1980
The 2009 North Korean nuclear test
The Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang).
'The Interview', a 2014 American political satire targeting Kim Jong-un

In other words, 7/12 are about Korean War (1950-1953). Surprisingly, all of the battles chosen occurred south of the DMZ of nowadays. Nothing about the capital Pyongyang, except from a snippet about the Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang). This snippet is so outdated that, from May 2013 to April 2019, it was saying the hotel is scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013. Never heard of [The eight scences of Pyongyang] ? 'Watching the full moon from Pobyok Cliff' is a marvelous and modern view. Nothing about any other North Korean town. What a shame for a portal pretending to be about North Korea.

And we have also 6 biographies

Kim Il-sung (1912 – 1994)
Kim Jong-il (1941 – 2011)
Kim Jong-un (born 1983)
Jo Ki-chon (1913 – 1951) was a Russian-born North Korean poet.
Han Sorya (1900 – 1970) head of the Korean Writers' Union, purged 1962
Kim Pyong-il (born 1954), surviving son of Kim Il-sung.

As if nobody was worth noticing except the three Kim and three marginal people. Nothing about the people itself nor about Economy of North Korea nor about any other North Korean topic. What a shame for a portal pretending to be about North Korea.

When looking onto the details, this empty thing is not really a portal about North Korea. This so called portal is top and foremost a way to advertise the 'Great Articles' that were promoted by the now defunct WikiProject Korea. As these articles are

44 about Korean War

14 about mostly foreign topics

21 about K-pop and dramas

09 about North Korea

13 about South Korea

02 about (marginal) pre-1945 people

the emptiness of this portal about North Korea should not remain a surprise.

As a consequence, this quite empty thing pretending to be a portal about a long lasting country should be deleted. This would be the most simple decency with regard to our readers (and with regard to all Koreas, from past and present). This portal has never been developed to reach an acceptable size and become something that could pretend to be a navigation tool about North Korea. The sparcity [wmflabs] of the page views related to the three Korea portals largely explains why this emptiness has persisted along the years. Obviously this deletion is to be decided without prejudice of (1) another portal devoted to Korean War (1950-1953) --at least, the articles are existing-- or (2) the apparition of some Heaven's Soldiers that will step forward and build a decent portal. Pldx1 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Have User:Kanghuitari and User:WhisperToMe bee notified? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of this discussion until now. Anyway, I can understand the ENwiki community wanting higher quality portals. This is something that should be encouraged. I think the best way to do this is to make it much easier to make a great portal, and that means having a process in which a user can choose a series of articles of a good enough quality that can make up the said portal.
- Re: "20 / 2 centuries" I believe in fact "North Korea" refers to strictly the post-1945 state with the capital in Pyongyang, so the history would be measured in decades, not so much centuries.
- WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whether Pyongyang should be deleted is beyond the scope of this MFD. (The article on Pyongyang should not be deleted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these are content issues, not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WikiProject Korea courtesy talkpage notified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The arithmetic makes no sense. However, this is yet another poorly implemented portal that needs to be swept away, with the possibility that someone will develop a reasonable portal in accordance with future portal guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This portal is so empty that it cannot have any content issue. The portal guideline says explicitly that:

Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create. Examples are given of lack of maintenance (due mainly to a lack of readers)
A portal helps to browse on a particular subject. This toy sized 'portal' helps nothing. Far better navigation tools are provided by the main article North Korea, by Index of North Korea-related articles, and by Template:Korea topics. Trying to distract reader's attention to this useless thing is (1) shameful in concept (2) unsuccessful in fact (how many page views ?). And we have to stop this experiment, when conclusion is reached.

Pldx1 (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's pretend for a minute that we have my proposed two-stage portal deletion process in action. The nominator has properly brought an important national portal to the community's attention for review. Their assessment of the portal (outside the numerical hyperbole) seems broadly accurate, but it looks as if a few items have recently been added (the ones I checked were on the 20th, pre-dating this nomination). Current stats:

There are 15 selected articles, 6 bios, 16 images and 2 sets of DYKs.
As an ITN regular, I know there has been a good deal of interest in N. Korea and its leader recently, which is in no way mentioned in this portal, which draws its news from Wikinews and is 11 months out of date.

The portal is being worked on. It currently exceeds (and at the date of the nomination probably met) the minimum 20 total articles. The news is out of date and probably needs to be drawn from somewhere else. Conclusion: Keep and improve further, bearing in mind that the 20 articles is a minimum, and a broad area such as a nation should have lots more than the minimum available. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I've updated the News section to draw automatically from the Current events portal rather than manually from Wikinews. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big improvement. You might want to take more items (and shift one of the boxes underneath to the other column) as it's now only covering a very short time-frame! Espresso Addict (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that adding

13. Smoking in North Korea

14. Wearing Kim badges in North Korea

15. Beer in North Korea

transformed a 18 pages portal into a portal broadly covering this country ? Moreover, I seems that the in the news section advertises the news agencies rather providing a navigation inside of Wikipedia. 'just saying'. Pldx1 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying the addition of several articles converted it from not technically meeting the absolute minimum (depending on which nomination date one considers) to exceeding it. The news looks fine, and I don't really understand Pldx1's comment on that. The external links are short references and the items have wikilinks. The format is used in Portal:Current events. I didn't like the use of the Daily Mail but I have now extirpated that at source. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copying my vote and comment to deletion nominations for North Korea and South Korea) - Many of the portals have low pageviews. It feels like North and South Korea are being banished. Did someone mention a goal to automate or revamp the whole portal process, which appears to be antiquated and rarely used. Here are a few examples for Daily Average pageviews (latest 20):

China:134

Japan:102

North Korea:51

South Korea:30

Egypt:27

Namibia:12

Sudan:20

South Africa:42

Canada:59

Cuba:24

Mexico:42

United States: 222

France:88

Germany:97

Ireland:58

United Kingdom:147--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Joke of a portal. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let us try a detailed evaluation of one of those snippets used in the window "North Korea in the news". The snippet says:

April 24, 2019 (Wednesday). Asia Press reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered the execution by firing squad of four foreign ministry officials after the failure of his February Hanoi summit with U.S. President Donald Trump after accusing them of "selling information to the U.S." before the summit. (Daily Mail) (Yahoo News).

- How this sausage was made? The code of the portal calls {{Transclude selected current events}}. From the code of this template, the snippet is an extract of Portal:Current events/2019 April 24. Reading the history, the snippet was added by an IP, and then FOUR users removed and then re-added the Daily Mail link. It simply seems that no one ever opened these two sources. Yahoo says The executions ... have not been verified. Daily Mail says Despite the reports ... the claims have not yet been verified. In fact, both are only saying that Asia Press claimed its reporter spoke to a trade official who was told the rumour about the executions. And don't look at WP to know something about [Asia Press]: there is no article about this agency.

- This is the process that User:Espresso Addict recommends to improve further. It rather seems that deleting all this mess will be the improvement deserved by both Koreas and our readers as well. Pldx1 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless we want to deprecate portals entirely (which a different question) then a medium-sized country is a perfectly good topic for one. This isn't a navbox portal and the selected articles I got were all relevant. I disagree that the Korean War is out of scope, it was a military conflict involving North Korea and one which defines the country to the present day. The fact that a battle didn't take place in contemporary North Korea doesn't mean anything. I'm not seeing a good rationale for deletion here. Hut 8.5 21:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul McDonald put it succinctly: these are content issues, not deletion issues. Deletion is about whether something should exist, not about the quality/content of what's there (unless it's blatant spam/vandalism obviously). Waggers TALK 09:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Portal of ideal scope, is actively maintained (by me, as it happens), and contains no insurmountable issues in design or execution. I've already explained some of the design choices here. As this portal is actively maintained, you are more than welcome to suggest improvements on the portal talk page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear active maintainer. Did You Know that this portal is displaying an hearsay of an hearsay from DailyMail/Yahoo News but omits to mention Despite the reports ... the claims have not yet been verified ? Moreover, Did You Know that... "the 7th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), the ruling party of North Korea, was held on 6–9 May 2016" ? Pldx1 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true (and I'm not saying that it isn't) then just fix the content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Paulmcdonald. Your post just above is a great explanation of the pitiful state of this portal (and of so many other). You cannot be arsed to check if the two more failures I have put the finger on are indeed failures or not. And obviously, you cannot be arsed to fix the content by your self. You and yourself want to keep... and moreover you want that me and myself are doing the job. What a great joke... but also a great proof that the only way to fix this mess is to delete this portal, deprived of readers and deprived of people doing the maintenance diligences. Without prejudice of a full restart by a team decided to deliver something between Portal:University of Pittsburgh and Portal:San Francisco Bay Area. Pldx1 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you have to be the one to fix it. There's no reason to get upset. Any content that violates policy should be deleted. The only thing I can figure out that's left is that the nominator just wants more content. It looks like the nominator is calling for 610^9 (or is that 6 x 10^9?) more articles, but that seems a bit much since that's way more articles than are in the English edition of Wikipedia. I confess it will take me a long time to meet that standard. Hopefully I'm misunderstanding that--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The nomination is very odd. I'm not sure that I follow the logic, let alone see a case being made for deletion. A further, less esoteric nomination, might persuade me differently, but I can't support this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear User:BrownHairedGirl. When evaluating a portal, I think that a first question to ask is: what could be the size of a decent portal providing a decent navigation in the corresponding topic. This is another instance of a Fermi problem, whose original statement was "How many piano tuners are there in Chicago?". My guess was circa 600 snippets for NK (and thus 600 for SK). Maybe to be divided between 300 for NK proper, 300 for SK proper and 600 for pre-1945 Korea. But if you prefer saying: North Korea proper is at least as important as cricket, thus at least 300 and the other figures accordingly, I have no problem with that. In any case, a toy sized portal with at most 18 snippets is only that: a kid's toy... or a slap in the face of all Koreas, and in the face of our readers as well. And this is not all. This specific portal, the Portal:North Korea'one is far from being maintained (at a level above a simple lip service). Nobody has any intent to do anything against displaying an hearsay of an hearsay from DailyMail/Yahoo News but omitting to mention Despite the reports ... the claims have not yet been verified ? Nobody has any intent to do anything about the snippet that says As of 2015 it has been the last party congress held, despite party rules requiring a quadrennial meeting. It could seem cruel to insist on this simple fact that finding a snippet in a set of 15 should not be that difficult, but this is nevertheless a fact. Moreover, there is no surprise here. You cannot hope any crowd sourcing when you don't have the required crowd. But, to be sure, this not the end of the world. There are so few readers facing this fake portal, and part of them are only crawling robots. Pldx1 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the 6th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea snippet. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 6 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Korea

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: keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:South Korea

As already stated at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Korea, the so called Portal:South Korea is a shameful copy of the empty set: TWO pictures, TWO articles, THREE bibliographies, all from 2015. A film director + a speed skater + Ban Ki-moon, this is South Korea, as seen from this portal. Moreover, this so-called portal is so much abandoned that Ban Ki-moon is described as the present days Secretary-General of the United Nations, while his mandat was from January 2007 to December 2016.

The case here is not the existence of so many articles that could have been used to build a decent portal. The case is that nobody has ever tried to do so, and that nobody will ever come to maintain something with so low page views [wmflabs]. The most simple decency with regard to our readers (and with regard to all Koreas, from past and present) requires to delete this fake portal.

Without prejudice to some maintainer Who Will Come From The Stars at some unforeseeable future.

Pldx1 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Have the contributors User:Kanghuitari and User:Ansmdgotl1818 been notified? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WikiProject Korea courtesy talkpage notified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The frozen view must have been refreshed, because it now describes Ban as a former Secretary General. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that Pldx1 saw it describe Ban as the Secretary General isn't a good sign. Yet another portal created recklessly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to the content mentioned above, there's quite a few rotating sets of DYKs, though they are done in a somewhat odd fashion. Is anyone from Wikiproject Korea prepared to expand and update this? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (copying my vote and comment to deletion nominations for North Korea and South Korea) - Many of the portals have low pageviews. It feels like North and South Korea are being banished. Did someone mention a goal to automate or revamp the whole portal process, which appears to be antiquated and rarely used. Here are a few examples for Daily Average pageviews (latest 20):

China:134

Japan:102

North Korea:51

South Korea:30

Egypt:27

Namibia:12

Sudan:20

South Africa:42

Canada:59

Cuba:24

Mexico:42

United States: 222

France:88

Germany:97

Ireland:58

United Kingdom:147--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is certainly broad enough to justify a portal; since it meets the WP:POG guideline and the existing portal and subpages certainly are a foundation for future improvement, WP:TNT does not apply and we should remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you will do the job ... or is this only another occurrence of a famous fallacy: South Korea, the country, being a large subject has nothing to do with the fact that the present copy of the empty set is not a navigation tool into anything. By the way, using Rhee Taekwon-Do as an SK topic while the article itself says the contrary is surely another foundation for future improvement ! Pldx1 (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it is kept, and if no one else (ideally from WP:WikiProject Korea) steps up, I will do the job. Along with Portal:Andes and Portal:Nelson Mandela. Does that make me He Who Came From The Stars? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Once this not-a-portal has been deleted for not being a portal, you will be totally free to restart everything from scratch, and try to build a decent one. This is a broad topic indeed. One that would require a large labor force... but don't hope for any help from WP:WikiProject Korea, this project is as mythical as the haetae of old. If you are really sure to correctly evaluate the induced workload, don't hesitate, have good luck and some readers ! Pldx1 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so the "current events" of the content of a portal is no reason to delete the portal. Historical portal articles are valid, the content is good, and there is no deadline. The arguments are all related to content issues, not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the content is good is an amusing comment about a portal that encompasses no more than TWO pictures, TWO articles, THREE bibliographies, all from 2015 and pretends describe South Korea as a whole. Pldx1 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul McDonald. Waggers TALK 09:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good scope, perfectly maintainable. I've added two extra Featured images to the Selected images section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

perfectly maintainable is only the usual fallacy: do the job by yourself instead of trying to compulse someone else to do the huge amount of job that should be done to obtain a decent portal. What we have is only a lack of progress due to a lack of work. But a portal is supposed to be an actual navigation tool. POG, you know, and the remaining letter soup. As of now, there are Lua error 'missing such and such', while a good part of the few existing subpages are made of outdated snippets. Better delete everything than wait for the keepers to sort this mess (this last from so long a time)! Without prejudice to a restart from scratch if User:UnitedStatesian, or even a team around him, wants to. Pldx1 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan (2nd nomination)

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: no consensus. OK, this is some confusing discussion full of sidetracks. It seems like the key questions are a) can we have a portal on this topic and b) can the portal be brought up to shape, e.g by reverting it to a manual version. Point a) appears to hinge on WP:POG and WP:REDUNDANTFORK and it looks like there is reasoned disagreement about whether POG is met or REDUNDANTFORK violated, with no killer argument on either side. Regarding point b) as noted by Waggers and others people are working on this portal - the portal under discussion in this MFD - so the "nobody is going to fix this" argument is not really convincing. Maybe at the end it will turn out that it can't be maintained after all, but I am not seeing a consensus for that. So no consensus on either point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Jordan

Abandoned old-style manual portal converted to a wholly automated pseudo-portal based on the page Outline of Jordan. As such it is now just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Outline.

(Until a few days ago, the article list was sourced from the navbox Template:Jordan topics, but for some reason that was causing display glitches).

Either way, it's the same flaw as portal based on a single navbox. The nature of the single page does not alter the redundancy. (For a full explanation of why a type of based on a single navbox is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

This page was previously an old-style multi-page portal, converted[19] to the automated form by @The Transhumanist in January 2019. The last manual version before TTH's various changes[20] is not broken, but it is woefully inadequate. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jordan shows the subpages, including Portal:Jordan/Selected Biography Archive (only two links) and Portal:Jordan/Selected biography (only one link); while Portal:Jordan/Selected article contains only one link, the acient city of Petra.

So basically, the portal was very skimpy, and has been abandoned after its creation in 2006.I don't think there anything worth keeping. No Portal:Jordan is better than this Portal:Jordan.

So, I propose that this portal be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A judicious application of WP:TNT is required here.--Auric talk 02:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that some work has occurred to expand and improve the portal. More work is needed, but it's a start. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I am aware that this was recently discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan, but that discussion did not properly examine the poor state of the manual version which some editors wanted to restore. Pinging all participants at the previous MFD: @Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Guilherme Burn, SportingFlyer, Espresso Addict, and Finnusertop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have time to review this, and at the rate things are accumulating atm, never will. But BrownHairedGirl, please humour me and

(1) explain in detail what the rationale for automatically deleting portals on portal-worthy topics purely because they are based on an outline;
(2) point out all the closed-as-delete MfDs that support this stance are.

This is a genuine good-faith question; I've commented on so many of late I can't see straight, let alone remember which was which. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict

User:Espresso Addict To answer your good-faith question, some of us, including User:BrownHairedGirl, have been saying that automated portals that are based solely on a single navbox or a single list, and an outline is a single list, are inherently crud and should be deleted without regard to whether the topic is portal-worthy (which is why the deletions are without prejudice to a curated portal). What has started the cleanup of portals was the plague of cruddy portals, and they are being identified and deleted with more care than they were created with. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive for me being blunt, but I am tired after putting a lot of time into this, and after NAIK's antics below, I am annoyed:

that should be very simple: if all the links are on one page, another page which reproduces that set is the same thing, repackaged
I'll just give you one for now: WP:Miscellany for deletion/15 automated portals built on a single list. Call the page a list or an outline or colorless-green-sleepy-monster-from-Atlantis-with-bad-taste-in-music, it's still a page of links.

There are more such MFDs ... but sorry, if want a comprehensive set, you can do yer own homework. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are not the same as outlines, at least in the sense that proposing to delete a proper list in mainspace to make way for a portal is absurd. However, I see no reason to automatically prefer an outline to a portal. In principle, it would make perfect sense to delete outline of Jordan, which gets broadly the same amount of traffic (ie not a lot) as Portal:Jordan,[21] and move the content into the portal. Or just leave both where they are, as different ways of presenting an outline of the topic, depending on whether one prefers links or summaries+images (which might depend whether one is logged in or out). So I'm leaning keep, for now, at least till this issue is clarified. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both the outline and the portal are crud, but we are only talking about the portal right now. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid "I think it's crud" is not a valid reason for deletion; it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT repackaged. Bermicourt (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, the principle of not keeping content fork portals is now broad community consensus, per the two mass nominations. The closer should discard your argument which is based on rejecting that consensus.

If you or anyone else wants to open an RFC on a broader process of converting Outline pages to semi-automated portal, go right ahead. As you know, that conversion could be done in about one minuted per page, if — big if — there is a consensus to do it. So there is no need to keep the WP:REDUNDANTFORKjust in case there might at some point in the future be an RFC consensus for an idea which you have only just floated here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely disagree that there's consensus for automatically deleting portals other than those based on one or more templates, and would ask the closing administrator to use their own judgement. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to This pre-automated version. Consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jordan was discerned eight days ago for the portal to be retained. People should actually be allowed some time to improve it; these things take time. The core of a portal is in place at the pre-automated version, it just needs expansion. See also WP:IMPERFECT, part of Wikipedia's Editing policy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One problem we have at the moment is that we are drowning in deletion discussions. I've been trying to find a space to work on my own portals (or indeed anything else) but there's always another 20 or so portals at MfD to check. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Yeah, the deletion nominations should slow down. I've worked to expand some portals very recently, even today, but it does take time. It takes a lot more time to properly expand a portal compared to the time it takes to type out a deletion nomination and for a relatively small group of "portal deletionists" to subsequently state "delete per nom" along with some other minor comments. Fact is, though, unfortunately, this has been the status quo at MfD lately. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Northamerica1000 & @Espresso Addict, I think it's likely to remain that way for some time. The lack of triaging of portals over the years has left a backlog of rotting portals, some of which have been rotten for over a decade.

After the big effort to clear TTH's spam creations, quite a few editors have now developed some expertise in scrutinising portals. I want to continue my trawl of the heap while that knowledge is still fresh and before portals gets restructured again. I know my way around the current setups, and I'd like to finish the job of clearing out the junk, so that broad decisions can be take about the non-junk remainder.

I can't speak for others involved in the cleanup, but they seem to be keeping going too.

However, I am conscious of the load on those who want to scrutinise these nominations, so I bundle where possible, and try to write a comprehensive description of the issues, complete with links, to facilitate that scrutiny. This one took me about 40 minutes of research and writing, but some of the bundles of about ten have taken many hours of work before publication. So there is a limit on how many I can process; I don't think it helps anyone to chuck out one-line nominations of pages with a complex history.

However, it's also wildly unrealistic for NAIK to assume that they can single-handedly expand and maintain the hundreds of rotted portals which have been discovered in recent weeks. Manual portals need a lot of work to set up, even more to expand, and have often lacked maintenance for 5 or 10 or even 13 years.

If the issue that NA1K and one or two others can't keep up with the rate of scrutiny, that simply reaffirms the fundamental problem that led to them all rotting in the first place: that there have been way more portals than the community could maintain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@Northamerica1000 you got my goat there in your last post. I have spent many many hours researching MFD nominations. Your description of that hard work as type out a deletion nomination is utterly outrageous. This nomination alone is the first of abatch of 9 pages I am working through after an initial assessment which has already taken over 4 hours

I also spent literally hundreds of hours on checking and sorting the driveby spam which was created in seconds, because a bunch of other radical include-any-old-crap-ists blocked a speedy deletion criterion. So i get seriously pissed off at cheap throwaway ABF misrepresentations of the scrutiny that I apply before making an MFD nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Portal:Jordan has been junk for 13 years. Any suggestion that MFD now is somehow a rushed job is risible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular issues with (may I refer to you as BHG, it's easier to type? EA/Espresso is fine for me) BrownHairedGirl's careful nominations. But there are several people bringing portals here, and not all are as experienced or as careful.

Personally I'd like to develop a two-stage portals for deletion process, similar to the featured delisting, but I haven't stopped typing for ~5 hours, and I have yet to start doing what I wanted to do this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, EA, call me BHG. That's fine. But thanks for asking.

Look, I know that some other MFD noms are sloppy and rushed. I have been critical of both the speed and quality of those nominations, and have bene subjected to a sustained campaign of personal abuse for doing so.

So I am well annoyed that you and NA1K used this page to vent about issues you have with others. That's not good conduct.

Sure, a two-stage process sounds good. But it's a year since dozens of experienced editors posted at WP:ENDPORTALS about how most portals were rotten, unmaintained crap. It's 7 months since I first posted at WP:WPPORT about the dire quality of the new creations. So I'm gonna shout now: EVERY SINGLE DAMN STAGE OF THE CLEANUP HAS BEEN DRIVEN BY PEOPLE OUTSIDE WPPORT. I have posted many times abut the need for a triage process, but nobody at WPORT has even writyen a draft outline of such a process, let alone got consensus for it, never mind putting it into action.

Portals fans left a triaging vacuum for a decade, and now that vacuum has been filled by using MFD as the forum. Your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Other's have been helping to improve the non-automated portals as well. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. At any rate, my comment was regarding the overall state of affairs, not this particular nomination; your nominations come across as researched, but others do not. Well, I'm going to go work on some more non-automated portals now; hopefully my work and the work of others to improve the encyclopedia will be fruitful. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This was just kept last week and should not be deleted on a technicality. As a result, I'm really, really frustrated with BrownHairedGirl's attempt to own the policy around whether portals should be kept, and prefer they stopped cleaning up the junk, or at least stopped cleaning up the junk for a short time period so we can figure out what to do next. The problem with scrutinising portals that are not problematic is it largely comes down to an individual interpretation of WP:POG, and a number of proposals are up at I believe the Village Pump. I'm now sitting here having absolutely no idea whether a portal will be kept or not, after the deletion of portals which have dozens of featured articles, or deletions of portals of sports teams I've worked to fix up, largely because the users who dislike portals are currently controlling the deletion procedure. But in any case, this is clearly a tendentious nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer, please ... WP:REDUNDANTFORK is not a technicality. It's a long-standing, key content guideline.

And you would well know if you had read this nomination, it doesn't even mention WP:POG. That's a straw man. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a portal a WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a new one to me. Considering the amount of time you took to bring this to MfD, did you ever consider updating the portal instead of renominating it on a technicality, especially since we're swamped with these deletions at the moment? SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a portal a redundant fork is not a new one. BHG has been making that point in every analysis of automated portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, I am disappointed to see that you repeat the bogus claim that this nomination is based on technicality.

If WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a new one to you, then you simply have not been following recent discussions. I have posted on on this MFD's talk page a list of 78 recent Portal MFDs in which WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been cited.

Note also that WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, where @SportingFlyer !voted[22] to delete (along with an overwhelming majority of a very high turnout) was based explicitly on the principle in the nomination statement that This makes each of these portals merely a fork of the navbox. Exactly the same wording was used a week later at the Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox. Just in those two discussions alone, that's 2,555 portals deleted as forks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDUNDANTFORK was never explicitly mentioned, and I voted delete since the issue in my mind was the mass creation of portals without any portal maintainers, not because they're redundant forks. The "redundant fork" argument is an argument against all portals, not just portals based on one navbox specifically, which I've mentioned before - you and others have been crusading against all portals, and the rules on which individual portals should be kept or deleted boil down to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no idea what you think this deletion discussion is if not a technicality - you know what you're doing around here and I'm extremely disappointed that you would open another contentious delete discussion a week after the community !voted to keep this particular portal. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, I'm extremely disappointed that you

try to invent or imagine some massive distinction between the phrase This makes each of these portals merely a fork and a shorthand link to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. That's way beyond wikilawyering; it is wikisophistry.
Do not accept the consensus at that the two mass CFDs or the dozens of others which also agreed to delete WP:REDUNDANTFORKs
Make an unevidenced smear against me in your false assertion that I have been crusading against all portals. I supported WP:ENDPORTALS, but accept its result, and have voted keep in many MFDs. My efforts have been to remove the junk, not to achieve by stealth a goal which as not reached broad consensus.

I pinged all the participants in the previous discussion, included yourself, to avoid any risk of forum-shopping. I have below pinged the closer of the previous discussion, inviting them to close this discussion if they feel that is appropriate. If so, I'll take the previous close to DRV to seek a relisting on the basis of new info, and then we can resume AFD round 3.

Y'know, SportingFlyer, I do really believe that you mean well. But you have repeated here a pattern of launching off with little regard for fact, and of making counterfactual allegations that I am acting in bad faith. Your attempt to dismiss policy-based debate as WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT is especially low. i suggest that you take some time to reflect on your conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are acting in bad faith. I just very much disagree with you on a couple issues, and I'm very frustrated with the manner in which portal deletion has been conducted. I voted delete in the previous discussion not on WP:REDUNDANTFORK grounds but because the bulk creation of portals was generally disruptive and bulk deletion was incredibly efficient, and I believe a number of the other !voters did too. I'm appreciative of the work you did nominating all of those in bulk, but I don't think that particular MfD created any specific policy. The only other !voter who even mentioned forks in the discussion was Levivich. I do not think you have a consensus to delete this particular topic on WP:REDUNDANTFORK grounds, and I don't believe any portal should be deleted on WP:REDUNDANTFORK grounds, because I believe there's a distinction between portals and articles. I also keep bringing WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT into play because, as I've mentioned above, we do not currently have good rules on what individual portals to keep and delete. It's not that there are no rules at all, but they're not very clear, and they're being applied arbitrarily. Also, I do note that you were in favor of keeping at least some portals at WP:ENDPORTALS, but the MfD after MfD of portals is exceptionally hard to keep up with, and I admit many of them being nominated do need to be removed. But I'm sure you can understand how someone like myself who is generally supportive of the portal project can find this entire process very frustrating. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I get the frustration, @SportingFlyer, but I assure you that it's mutual. The cleanup has been very labour-intensive, and while some portals project members have been supportive (most of them intermittently, on a case-by-vase basis) , very few have been proactive, and many have been outright hostile. All the heavy-lifting has been done by outsiders, including my mods to Module:Excerpt slideshow to make a suite of tracking categories (see Category:Automated portal pages tracking) and my many thousands of AWB runs to cross-check and analyse various issues. My folder of lists of portals contains several hundred pages, plus hundreds more deleted. Look at the list of my WP-space page creations, and test a sample to note the depth of analysis involved. The portals project had no grading system to help.

If a project has a long-term failure to triage the pages in its scope according to community norms, then eventually the work gets done by outsiders who may bring different sensitivities to bear. I first saw that happen back in 2006/07 with the then Baronetcies project, which I had some dealings with 'cos I worked on British MPs, and there was a lot of overlap. The Baronets fan club was treating every baronet as inherently notable without getting community support for that. They squealed when a few outsiders AFDed and PRODed, but rejected my pleas to do some triaging and start a controlled cull. So inevitably, a momentum built outside, and the cull was done with a lot less sensitivity than the project members would have liked. With a few miscreants involved on both sides, before long the Baronets project collapsed ... and outsiders did a huge cull.

That's all very similar to what's happening here. More than 2 months after TTH's bubble was burst, the portals project has done almost nothing proactive. No identification of obvious junk, little or no list-making or tracking; just a few unlogged driveby reversions of automated portals to manual state, often with zero quality assessment. MFD:Portal:Angola was one of those.

If you and the other portal supporters want sympathy and assistance, you all need to be doing a whole lot better than restoring junk like Angola and Myanmar (see MFD:Portal:Mynamar) without even logging it as a problem, and now wikilawyering a defence of this abandoned junk which was converted to driveby template-fork then driveby outline-fork.

And above all, if you and @Espresso Addict want to now make a last stand on the claim that automated portals are an exception to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, I will escalate the dispute resolution fast and high, because I think that there is a clear community consensus that portals are not an exception to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There's a long list of discussions on this MFD's talk page which effectively endorse the WP:REDUNDANTFORK principle, and I did a quick analysis of the first mass nom. Out of the first 20 !votes, 7 explicitly note the redundancy. So if I have to take this to an RFC about whether automated portals should be WP:REDUNDANTFORK-except, I am pretty sure that the community reaction will be a severely displeased shout that the portal fans have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. After a year of the project at best failing to stem the flood of portalspam, and at worst cheering it on, followed by several months of high-drama cleanup, I expect that will be the point at which any remaining collective credibility of the portals project vanishes. It's a nuclear option ... but if you want to press that button, we can do it that way.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for everyone's reference here is the current text which is the target of the shortcut WP:REDUNDANTFORK (there look to have been no substantive edits since February):

Content forking can be unintentional or intentional. Although Wikipedia contributors are reminded to check to make sure there is not an existing article on the subject before they start a new article, there is always the chance they will forget, or that they will search in good faith but fail to find an existing article, or simply flesh out a derivative article rather than the main article on a topic. If you suspect a content fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.

Espresso Addict (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant fork was written with articles in mind, not portals. Portals use content from articles to provide a unique means of navigation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, not so. Portals use content from multiple articles and pages, to provide a unique means of navigation. Merely putting a wrapper around an existing set is not unique. How complicated is that?

Many dozens of editors at recent MFDs have endorsed that point. What on earth is going on with you three that you think his is somehow still up for dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking the link and reading the policy? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Well, if Redundant fork is going to be applied outside of articles, even though it was written to pertain to articles, then it could be used to delete all nav box templates. After all, categories have the same content as templates, so the templates would then be considered redundant forks. Then, after all the nav boxes are deleted, we can start adding category trees to the bottom of articles in their place. What's next? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Espresso Addict, in this case, that's just hardcore textualism. The community consensus is already very clear that the same principle applies to portals. If you really want to relitigate that issue in order to defend this particular example of the portalspammer's failed autonmation project, then as I wrote above[23] to @SportingFlyer, we can do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, I am disappointed but not surprised by that comment. You have been here long enough to know that the categories/templates issues has long been covered by WP:CLS, and that portals (let alone automated pseudo-portals) are are not part of the guideline. But it looks like y'all really do want to make your last stand on defending this aspect of the portalspammer's junk.

C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my !vote above is to revert to This non-automated state, and then improve the portal from there. No defending of any "portalspammer's junk" here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I really don't know how the text I quoted (which is all the article says that's linked with that shortcut) applies to portals. If you read it editing in "portal" in whenever it says "article", then it says essentially don't create Portal:Butterflies and moths when Portal:Lepidoptera exists, and if one does so by accident, merge into the older of the two, which won't get any argument from me. The rest of the guideline's text deals with articles and mostly isn't appropriate to meta-content such as portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000, if you want to revert to manual, then why on earth defend the principle of retaining an automated junk fork? That seems pointless. I would paraphrase it as "the current version is so bad that it's better to revert to that which was abandoned for years ... but I want still want the right to retain the really mangled stuff". Odd.

Espresso Addict, as above, the principle of not keeping a portal as a wrapper around one other page is very well established by now, at numerous MFDs, including one of the biggest-scope and best-attended MFDS ever. But you've made it very clear that despite that, you want to wikilawyer it to enable the retention a subset of the portalspam and/or a subset of the driveby conversions of manual pages to automated junk.

I hear you loud and clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending automated portals. I view Redundant fork as being misused relative to automated portals. Redundant fork was written in regards to articles, not portals. Applying it to portals is a synthesis of Redundant fork's actual intent. That's it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I told BHG privately that I would avoid drama at all costs but this claim that WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply to portals just came so out of left-field for me. Consensus has been since MFD:Mass-created portals based on a single navbox that WP:REDUNDANTFORK does apply to portals. I am quite shocked that anyone walked away from that discussion thinking "portals based on a navbox are still a real good idea" or anything even similar to that statement. If that is not what is being said here, then so be it. If the arguement really is that WP:REDUNDANTFORK doesn't explicitly refer to portals, then that is just semantics. The same principle behind it clearly applies unless someone here is saying that it doesn't. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need an RfC then, since my understanding of that MfD was that it had identified the vast majority of problematic bulk-created portals, not creating binding policy applying forking to portals, which are a separate navigation tool. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people handwaved the whole redundant fork notion in order to get rid of the navbox-based pseudo-portal junk. If you examine the actual guideline, it's absurd to apply it to any meta-content, whether that's the main page, other portals, categories, or outlines, or infoboxes (which duplicate Wikidata), or whatever. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, as I noted above[24], Out of the first 20 !votes, 7 explicitly note the redundancy. But you reject here the principle that the article list of a portal should not be a precise replica of the article list of an another page. So I will open an RFC on that. At the RFC, you can tell all those editors who they didn't mean what they wrote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words in my voice. I don't necessarily "reject ... the principle that the article list of a portal should not be a precise replica of the article list of an another page". (And in any case, even the navbox portals are not exactly that, as they reject stubs.)

I do reject the notion that this is anything whatsoever to do with the policy that you linked, which says nothing of the sort, and (mostly) doesn't apply to meta-content. I just was perfectly prepared to IAR it, in order to get rid of all the junk. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this subthread keeps getting slimmer and slimmer. Maybe let's give it a rest and just discuss this portal at this time. Just saying. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@North America: This is why {{Outdent}} exists, right? Either way, I will talk to BHG about helping me write an essay interpreting WP:REDUNDANTFORK or something like that. We can discuss it then if you all like. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - User:BrownHairedGirl, I think that in this case User:SportingFlyer has a valid point, and I am not sure how much validity to give it. Are you re-opening this discussion based on a technicality? If you have new information, should it go to Deletion Review rather than just re-litigating? I realize that I am asking the critics of portals to play consistently by the same set of rules when the advocates of portals are shifting the rules, first saying "Speed Up! Let's Go to 10,000!" and then saying, "Slow down! You are rushing undoing our spam!" But maybe everybody should play by consistent rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon, I didn't see much pint in going through DRV when the prev discussion was so manifestly deficient. However, I am pinging the closer of the previous discussion, User:Amorymeltzer to invite them to to close this discussion if they think that DRV would be a better path. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - At this point I don't think it matters what I think proper; given all the participation before and after this, I think my involvement is best summarized by Austin Powers (or was it Frank Drebin?): that train has sailed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Assuming BHG's history link is correct the manual portal was a static one. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both automated and manual versions are shameful shits, showing utmost disrespect to Jordan... and to the so few readers that get lost at Portal:Jordan. See [wmflabs] for some figures. As usual, without prejudice to anyone who would create and maintain a decent portal about this country. Pldx1 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know that previous manual version of this portal was in such a pitiful state that TTH was totally right when nuking this not-a-portal version that never used more than THREE biographies, ONE other article and THREE pictures? Pldx1 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did You Know why the automated version of this portal is a shameful shit ? Because it pretends to use the following Did You Know:

... that Jordan' Murphy was the first basketball player to earn Big Ten Conference Player of the Week three weeks in a row since Evan Turner did so eight seasons earlier?
... that Jeremy Lin and Jordan' Clarkson were the first Asian Americans in NBA history to start together at guard?
... that LaVar Ball claimed that he would have beaten Michael Jordan' in one-on-one basketball?
... that Savannah Jordan' was the first soccer player in the history of the Southeastern Conference to be named SEC Offensive Player of the Year as a freshman?
... that curve-shortening causes every smooth simple closed curve to become convex and then near-circular before it shrinks to a point?
... that show creator Tony Jordan' wanted HolbyBlue to emulate the American police dramas Hill Street Blues and NYPD Blue?
... that the Supreme Court of Canada held that it was unreasonable for there to be a 44-month delay between the filing of charges and the trial?
... that the fatal shooting of her son inspired Lucy McBath to advocate for gun control and ultimately run for the United States Congress?
... that the footballer Jordan' Green worked as a supermarket shelf-stacker before earning his first professional contract?
... that the social thriller film genre has been popularized in the United States by Get Out director Jordan' Peele and in India by Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan?

as a method to navigate into the articles about the country Jordan, whose capital is Amman. A Jordan curve, indeed! Pldx1 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. Per the DYK errors listed above, I have removed DYK section from the portal for now (diff). Errors in such a magnitude is unacceptable and a disservice to WP:READERS. The errors listed above are no longer on the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's over 3 months since TTH's 22 January 2019 "restart" of the portal[25] enabled this garbage. It's 17 days since this portal was first MFDed[26]. Yet only now, after 40K of discussion here, when @Pldx1 helpfully copy-pastes the DYK crap from the portal page to the MFD page, does one of the portal fans even do a quick edit to remove the junk.

Despite this, the portal fans are still telling us that this page should not be deleted 'cos they have the capacity to develop and maintain by a very time-consuming process this and many hundreds of similar portals which they want to revert to manual after the same portals were automated due to decades of rot. Not plausible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a "portal fan". I'm a portal editor. Sorry, but your continuous negative typecasting of and finger pointing toward portal editors in various discussions is tired. Stereotyping in a negative manner using the term "portal fans" doesn't affect me, because it's subjective, and I base much of what I do upon logic, rather than emotion and partisanship. One could ask why the user that pointed out all of the problems above didn't simply correct them at the source, and instead chose to keep the errors in place as a justification for deletion. It took a fraction of the time (about 20 seconds, including the edit summary) to correct at the source compared to the time it likely took to copy and paste the above content. When such errors are found, perhaps post them at the talk page of WikiProject portals, where users interested in improving portals can then have a chance to address the concerns. Regardless, at least consider keeping in mind that philosophy regarding portals relative to XfD discussions is not an exercise in groupthink mentality, and that people from many backgrounds and with diverse points of view contribute to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NA1K, I base what I do on logic, not emotion. It's the defenders of portals who repeatedly defend the illogical.

So here's one bit of logic: Plx1 supports deletion of the whole page. Why on earth do you expect them to remove one of the broken parts on what they hope will be the whole portal's way to the recycling bin?

And I will repeat the piece of logic I posted above. Hundreds of manual portals were automated due to decades of rot. Where exactly do you propose to find the capacity to develop and maintain by a very time-consuming process this and many hundreds of similar portals which you want to revert to manual?

The defence of large numbers of poor-quality portals without resolving even that basic long-standing problem looks to me like the stance of a fan, not of an editor making a logical assessment of what is actually possible with the available resources. That's one of the reasons I use the shortened phrase "portal fan". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "portal fan" is a mischaracterisation. @BrownHairedGirl:, your cleanup efforts are appreciated, but I want to remind you again you do not own the process. There's been a lot of hostility from portal deletionists, and those sort of comments don't contribute to civility. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that caused offence, but as I just noted above, what I'm seeing here on similar pages looks very like a fan club. Lots of enthusiasm, but less focus on practical constraints.

For example, I see that in the last few hours, SportingFlyer has created 7 new subpages for this portal. 6 of those pages contain content forked from articles. How do you propose that the community will keep those 6 new content forks updated in accordance with their articles?

I AGF that the intention is for this portal to actually offer a broad overview of Jordan rather than has-non-zero-content-so-don't=delete placeholder, and that there will be therefore be dozens more such subpages content-forked from an article. Who will maintain these dozens of content forks on an ultra-low-traffic page? (Only 12 pageview per day).

WT:WikiProject Jordan is moribund. The last 2 substantive posts there (i.e. not notifications of processes) were in November 2016 & September 2017. So where's the maintainer going to be found? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry myself, but that's not an actual apology - you apologize, and then double down on your hostility towards myself and Northamerica1000 simply because we have the gall of disagreeing with you. If it's not obvious, I'm currently maintaining the portal. I've had time in bits in pieces tonight, so it's coming together slowly. Also, these aren't content forks. You're again throwing out arguments against all portals in an attempt to get rid of this one. I had hoped in the conversations earlier on this talk page we would get closer to at least some sort of understanding on these things but you're being very aggressive in your deletion of this to the point of hostility. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intended to be an apology. I stand by what I said, but am sorry that you find it offensive, and hope that you will look beyond your offence to the problem I am raising, viz, that I have a substantive concern here that your enthusiasm is exacerbating a long-term, widespread maintenance problem.

Yes, I get that you are working on the portal now. I already noted that. Are you committing yourself to its long-term maintenance?

And yes, those subpages are content forks. They are summaries of existing Wikipedia pages, replicating the function of the lead section of each article. MOS:Lead section says "the lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". A standalone pages which performs exactly the same function is a content fork. W already have technology which extracts the lead from the article; why not use that, rather than replicating the forked-subpages model which has a decade-long history of being unmaintained? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of my frustrations noted above is the time spent writing on this MfD, so in lieu of responding I've started improving the portal. I've done what I can for now (two selected articles) but will continue later. @BrownHairedGirl: I'm also fine with an RfC in general in terms of WP:REDUNDANTFORK to add a list of "what a portal is not". SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I agree. I view Redundant fork (RF) as being taken out of context toward portals; a synthesis. RF was written regarding articles, not portals. Portals utilize content from articles to provide a navigational aid and to present information in an alternate manner. While RF is being used to justify the deletion of automated portals, hopefully this synthesis won't extend to the older, handmade curated portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – At this point, Portal:Jordan does not require reversion to a pre-automated version. The process been accomplished by the process of WP:COPYEDITING to improve it, and the portal has been expanded quite a bit. I plan on expanding it more. My keep !vote still stands, because the topic clearly passes Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. Furthermore, most broad-topic portals about countries of the world and those about major geographical topics pass Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to qualify for standalone portals. Some of these portals need updating, checking for errors and correcting them when found, expansion with more content, and reversion to pre-automated versions when feasible. It all takes time, and the constant WP:RUSHDELETE deletion nominations are creating WP:DEADLINES that are difficult to keep up with. I'm not entirely sure why some users feel that most portals should be so eagerly and quickly deleted, but such potentially WP:OVERZEALOUS actions can be harmful to the encyclopedia. To WP:IMPROVE the encyclopedia, why not first post improvement requests to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, rather than posting yet another nomination for deletion? WP:IMPERFECT also comes to mind. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal fans proactively tackling the decade-old backlog of broken and/or unmaintained and/or junk portals which simply don;t have enough editors to sustain them

That's a fine collection WP:SOMETHING links, all of which completely ignores the key facts that NA1K is very well aware of:

Many hundreds of portals (including lots of country portals) have been unmaintained junk for up to a decade. That it why TTH converted so may of them to automated junk.
The fact that a blast of editing under MFD pressure has caused one of these portals to have some updating right now does not alter the fact that hundreds more remain unmaintained, and that even this abysmal one got any attention because one or two editors are running around like firefighters on amphetamines trying to perform emergency surgery
That frenzy of emergency surgery is unsustainable, and no long-term plan exists to stop the hundred of portals continuing to decay when the firefighters move on to other firefighting
That portals are not encyclopedic content, just a navigational too, so it is simply not possible for any portal deletion to be be harmful to the encyclopedia. They gain utterly risible pageviews, so readers lose nothing.

The WP:OVERZEALOUS keep-lots-of-unused-junk approach of portals fans does a lot of damage to the community, by increasing the burden on those who try to clear out junk.

It's time for NA1K and the rest of the portal fan club to do their own triaging of portals, rather than complaining about how editors are culling the bottom-level junk after the fans allowed a neglect of neglect to go untracked and then cheered on a spammer who more than tripled the extent of the problem. If I saw that a really serious triaging and grading program was actually between undertaken by NA1k and the other portal fans, then I would reconsider doing my own research and making my own MFDs. But so long as the response is this sort of "it's so unfair" moan, I conclude that the portals fans have no intention at all of fixing the systemic problems ... and when I see that their idea of a "fix" is to start creating dozens more content forks of article ledes to rot over the next decade, I conclude that their WP:OVERZEALOUS keepism is making the problem significantly worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, just more of the same tired "portal fan club" stereotyping and typecasting. Too bad. Ad hom finger pointing bores me at this point. Not seeing much at this point about the actual portal being discussed. The closer of the discussion about this portal will decide. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, NA1K. You make a generalised post moaning that the deletion of junk is happening too fast for your tastes. Then you moan because the reply addresses the issues you raised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all right then. Not looking to feud, but still not seeing anything about why Portal:Jordan should be deleted at this time. Anyway, I actually appreciate some of your points in the various discussions, just so you know. I don't know about the verb "moaning", though, because it's a weasel word that could be pertained to any debate. Just saying...

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously folks, can we all just get back to discussing Portal:Jordan? My understanding of the rationale for deletion was:

(1) that portal was automated based on an outline;
(2) that the original portal, pre-automation, was at time of nomination too small & outdated to meet the portal guidelines;
(3) that the portal had been abandoned in 2006.

The portal has since been reverted to the pre-automated state and expanded. I don't think anyone is arguing that Jordan is not in principle a suitable topic for a portal? So the questions we need to answer seem to me to be (1) whether the expansion is adequate to justify the existence of Portal:Jordan, and whether a portal unmaintained since 2006 is likely to attract sufficient ongoing maintenance in future. At the time of typing there are 10 selected articles, 6 bios, 6 topic overviews, 4 selected cities & 7 images, plus quality content and topics. The current version seems to meet the minimum requirements, although further expansion suitable for a national portal is important. News could be added, as could DYKs – as long as they relate to the country! The images need to have formatting added to wrap the image properly. As long as someone is prepared to maintain, continue to expand, and update, my conclusion is keep, pretty much per nomination ("without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time"). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess I have already waded into these muddy waters enough that I might as well cast a !vote. Here is a semi-detailed partial review of the portal in question:

Review of Portal:Jordan

From Portal:Jordan:

{{#ifexist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jordan
 | {{/box-header | Get involved}}
For editor resources and to collaborate with other editors on improving Wikipedia's Jordan-related articles, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Jordan|WikiProject Jordan]].
{{Box-footer}}
 |
}} <!-- END OF ifexist -->
|2=<!-- SECOND COLUMN -->
{{Random portal component|max=7|header=Selected picture|subpage=Selected picture|footer=More selected pictures}}
{{Random portal component|max=6|header=Selected topic overview|subpage=Selected topic overview|footer=More selected topics}}
{{/box-header|Categories|Portal:Jordan/Categories|}}
{{Portal:Jordan/Categories}}
{{Box-footer}}
}} <!-- END OF FLEX COLUMNS -->
<div class="nomobile" style="clear:both; width:100%">
{{#ifexist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jordan
}} <!-- END OF ifexist -->

...

{{/box-header|Sources}}
{{reflist}}
{{Box-footer}}

Comments: Well, {{#ifexist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Jordan}} appears twice in that mess of code right there. One has to wonder why we are still using #ifexist when know the project exists and then needed a second time. Also, pay attention to the fact that Portal:categories is in its own subpage because I am going to get back to that.
Moving past that odd choice, we have a whole new section dedicated to "Sources." What is in this magical section? Why of course an instance of {{reflist}}. How many references are there in this portal? None.
Clearly, even with all the attention and flurry of edits recently, no one has actually paid attention to the contents of this portal with any sort of care.

Now, let's take a look at that subpage. From Portal:Jordan/Categories:

[[Image:C Puzzle.png|42px|right|Category puzzle]]
<center><small>Select [►] to view subcategories</small></center>
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
<categorytree depth="1">Jordan</categorytree>
{{div col end}}

Let's compare it to {{Basic portal start page}} (the template used to spam portals):

{{Box-header colour|Subcategories}}
[[Image:C Puzzle.png|36px|right|Category puzzle]]
:<small>Select [►] to view subcategories</small>
{{div col|colwidth=15em}}
{{#tag:categorytree|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
{{div col end}}
{{Box-footer}}

Comments: Well I have more questions than comments. This subpage was created two days ago. What was necessary about this subpage to warrant its creation? If all category sections are going to look so similar, why was it even necessary to make a subpage? Was the idea rejected that we put all of that same-y code into a template? I digress...

Now let's compare the changes made to Portal:Jordan/Topics. 2019:

{{Plain navboxes|content= {{Template:Jordan topics|state=expanded}}
{{Foreign relations of Jordan|state=expanded}}
}}

2018:

This needed its own collapsing

{| align="left" width"90%" cellspacing="0" style="background-color:transparent"
|-
! width="10%" align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Geography of Jordan|Geography]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | <small>[[Governorates of Jordan|Governorates]] | [[Nahias of Jordan|Nahias]] | [[List of cities in Jordan|Cities]] | [[Dead Sea]] | [[Red Sea]] | [[Nature reserves in Jordan|Nature reserves]] | [[Extreme points of Jordan|Extreme points]]</small>
|-
! width="10%" align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[History of Jordan|History]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | <small>[[Nabateans]] | [[Hashemites]] | [[Islamic Empire]] | [[Ottoman Empire]] | [[Arab Revolt]] | [[Sykes–Picot Agreement]] | [[British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument)|British Mandate for Palestine]] | [[Emirate of Transjordan]] | [[1948 Arab–Israeli War]] | [[1967 Arab–Israeli War]] | [[Yom Kippur War|1973 Arab–Israeli War]] |  [[Israel–Jordan Treaty of Peace]] | [[Black September in Jordan|Black September]] | [[2011 Jordanian protests]]</small>
|- 
! width="10%" align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | [[Demographics of Jordan|Demographics]] and [[Culture of Jordan|culture]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | <small>[[Religion in Jordan|Religion]] ([[Islam in Jordan|Islam]] | [[Christianity in Jordan|Christianity]] | [[Roman Catholicism in Jordan|Catholicism]] | [[Freedom of religion in Jordan|Freedom of religion]]) | [[Arabic language]] | [[Art in Jordan|Art]] | [[Cinema of Jordan|Cinema]] | [[Cuisine of Jordan|Cuisine]] | [[Music of Jordan|Music]] | [[Sports in Jordan|Sports]] | [[Jordanian Association for Boy Scouts and Girl Guides|Boy Scouts and Girl Guides]] |  [[Public holidays in Jordan|Public holidays]]</small>
|- 
! width="10%" align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" |  [[Government of Jordan|Government and politics]]
| align="left" style="vertical-align: top;" | <small>[[The Royal Hashemite Court|The Royal Hashemite Court]]</small> | <small>[[Constitution of Jordan|Constitution]] | [[List of kings of Jordan|Kings]] | [[List of Prime Ministers of Jordan|Prime Ministers]] | [[Cabinet of Jordan|Cabinet]] | [[Parliament of Jordan|Parliament]] | [[List of political parties in Jordan|Political parties]] | [[Elections in Jordan|Elections]] | [[Law enforcement in Jordan|Law enforcement]] | [[Foreign relations of Jordan|Foreign affairs]] | [[Human rights in Jordan|Human rights]] | [[Ma'an Movement in Jordan]]</small>
|}

If one was wondering why the change was necessary, don't bother. It's because no one is planning on maintaining this portal. Any unique identity it once had has been torn to shreds. It could not be more apparent to me that all the recent edits to shift things around a bit. It's new ways of writing the same {{bpsp}} code.

Side note: This portal is the gift that keeps on giving. While I was verifying some of my statements for the below conclusion, I noticed this piece of code:

{{Portal maintenance status |date=January 2019 |subpages=none |broken=no |note= }}

It's like a sign of the things to come! Not only are there no maintainers listed, but the {{Portal maintenance status}} is way out of date in one parameter and just dead wrong in the another. It's almost like metaphysical poetry in this regard. Very eloquent.

Conclusion: For those who took the dive with me on that journey, you will see why I do not think this portal has really been improved much at all in the last few days in terms of design and code. Espresso Addict asks if the recent expansion is worth maintaining the portal. I will say (minus the article-selection type of content) that I feel it was just a squib. No one still has stepped up to maintain this portal, and we have only gotten this far because the portal had to be nominated for a second time. The country of Jordan deserves better than this. WP:TNT and start anew if needed, but don't keep junk no one is using around please. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Ok, I'm truly puzzled about this comment. What is your deletion rationale, exactly? Who gives a **** about the framing code? The content is all on the subpages. It's like saying delete a table because it uses the standard wikicode. Please unpack your argument a bit more. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso: It's evidence towards an incomplete, rushed, and hacked up portal. My rationale is pretty much: it is unmaintained, is uncarefored, and needs WP:TNT. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As already said in many previous discussions, the keep and expand !votes are !votes to be discarded. Because the way to parse these keep and expand !votes is "I, the Lord of the Castle, decide to keep, while you, the peones down the hill, are required to do the expanding work". Here, there is nothing to parse, we have directly: one could ask why the user that pointed out all of the problems above didn't simply correct them at the source, and instead chose to keep the errors in place as a justification for deletion. It seems that User:Northamerica1000 has difficulties to understand that this hierarchical pattern is not the way this wiki works. On the contrary, Wikipedia is --like it or not-- based on crowd sourcing. And --like it or not-- crowd sourcing requires crowd. According to [wmflabs], this Portal:Jordan is absolutely deprived of readership and has only 13 views a day, in the last three months before MfD discussion, versus 5426 views for the article Jordan. The key point to understand why this Portal:Jordan is in such a shameful state is simply to understand that TWELVE readers do not make a crowd.

Instead of that, we got a great vaudeville. Beside just more of the same tired "portal fan club" stereotyping and typecasting that seems to be a misswriting of just more of the same tiresome "portal fan club", stereotyping and typecasting, the automated keepers of broken portals have issued the following pompous rant: It takes a lot more time to properly expand a portal compared to the time it takes to type out a deletion nomination and for a relatively small group of "portal deletionists" to subsequently state "delete per nom" along with some other minor comments (an exact quote, as asserted by using {{tq}}, not a sarcastic summary of my own). Nevertheless, it seems that the subsequent Jordan curve was a sufficient minor comment to COMPULSE our Lords of the Castle to put at least one of their precious feet in the mud of the trenches. It was so urgent to erase their tracks after giving such an obvious proof they are emitting groupthink comments instead of doing their homework and specifically evaluate the objects under discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link - Quite a year later, the following WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/WikiProject report is of interest. Pldx1 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I just noticed that many Jordan-related article lack a link to the portal, so I've been adding the link here and there. The presence of links is typically associated with higher page views, whereas no links typically equates to fewer page views. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a fresh look and ignored the bulk of the comments above. Looks like a good portal, looks like good content. Any issue I can find is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. As for the comments about the style-automation-framing code-whatever, these are variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are just opinions that vary from one person to another. I see no policy violation, I see no guideline that is broken, and I see no reason to delete. Nor do I see any reason that this discussion has exploded into a novel.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is about whether something should exist, not about the quality/content of what's there (unless it's blatant spam/vandalism obviously). Content issues are not a valid rationale, they're a reason to fix it. The deletion policy is very clear: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WaggersTALK 09:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Waggers: Deletion is suitable for this portal. I will quote the following policies in favor of deletion in response to this.
WP:DEL#14: Reasons for deletion include... Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
WP:DEL#13: Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace [emphasis added]
WP:POG: The portal layout should be complete or there should be ongoing efforts to make the portal layout complete. The portal should be maintained and serve a useful purpose. [emphasis added]
If or when this base level criteria is met, I will happily change my !vote in a heartbeat. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Firstly thanks for taking the time and effort to find some deletion-policy based rationale, it's genuinely refreshing in these discussions at the moment.

Re:14, Everything on this portal page is part of Wikipedia; there's no content that isn't pulled from an article, list, topic, template or elsewhere that constitutes part of the encyclopaedia. So specifically which content at Portal:Jordan are you referring to here? Specifically, that part of the deletion policy refers to WP:NOT - which bit of that do you think is being violated here? I'm genuinely curious.

Re:13, again what specifically is breaching that criterion and how? This is a portal, in the portal namespace, and #13 specifically and exclusively relates to the article, template, user and project namespaces, not the portal namespace. But even it it did apply, there's no "established separate policy" for portals. There probably should be one, but obviously that's a different topic.

Finally you talk about WP:POG which is a content guideline not a deletion policy. The very first sentence states that the page includes general guidelines and best practices - akin to WP:MOS for articles. Failing to meet WP:MOS is not a valid deletion criteria for articles, and by the same token a portal not meeting the gold standard best practice guidelines is not a reason to delete it. As I said above, the deletion policy is very clear: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Editing can improve this page.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the portal needs some work. But that work is editing, not deleting. Waggers TALK 11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear User:Waggers. Thanks for being yet another Lord of the Castle who agree that the portal needs some work. But the question here is rather: do you agree to be one of the peones down the hill who will do the job ? Because a portal is required to be a functional navigation tool. And this one is not. Pldx1 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pldx1, yes absolutely. I'm a member of WikiProject Portals where we've been working hard, and making great progress, at minimising the manual intervention required for maintaining and updating portals, and devising quality and priority scoring systems to identify which portals we need to work on. I'll be happy to look at this portal personally and try to get it up to the standards we're aiming for based on the content that's available on the subject matter. Waggers TALK 21:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: I'm sorry, but I find it completely counterfactual — to the point of near-fantasy — that you claim that WikiProject Portals where we've been working hard, and making great progress, at minimising the manual intervention required for maintaining and updating portals, and devising quality and priority scoring systems to identify which portals we need to work on.

The reality I have seen is four thousand junk automated portals spewed out, several hundred more converted to a junk automated format, while hundreds more old portals remain abandoned, some times for over a decade, often without even forming a coherent start point.

I have found no grading system apart from the abandoned featured portals system, no systematic identification of broken and abandoned portals. Even the rudimentary tracking tracking of pages used by the portal was added by me, an outsider (see Category:Automated portal pages tracking and Category:Portal with subpages tracking), and I also found over 200 portals which were not even in Category:All portals].

All the cleanup of junk which has happened in the last two months has been led by editors who are not involved with the project, often the face of howls of outrage and abuse from some members of the project.

The project newsletters over the last year have all been about quantity, and even after this huge cleanup, 1127 of the ~1400 remaining portals remain in Category:Unassessed Portal pages.

If you think I have missed something, please point it out ... but right now I see nothing to support your claims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:KS Alex Pandian

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: Multiple. Draft version already G11'd, userspace draft will die at 6 months under G13 as a draft submitted to AfC anyway. There were no arguments aside from the nom's for deletion, and Joe makes a decent argument for not nuking it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:KS Alex Pandian

Two versions of the biography of this non-notable businessperson by two versions of an author who has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate MfD nomination. The Draft is G11-eligible and so tagged. The user sandbox is sourced. Unlikely to go anywhere, but that is OK for userspace, and sockpuppetry is not a reason for burning userspace. I recommend any editor who dislikes the availability of the sandbox content to blank it.

Deletion of sockpuppet abusers userpages may be a good idea, but I expect the nomination, or some support, to come from a self-declaring SPI clerk, admin or checkuser. Sockpupettry discovered in the AfC process does not provide justification to delete userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 27 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.

April 26, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Andes

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: Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Andes

Redundant portal, we already have Portal:Mountains. Cambalachero (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another duplicative portal by a member of the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Portalspam. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid deletion rationale is presented. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. This is clearly a viable broad topic. I disagree that it is worth deleting to re-create a better selection; it is much easier to improve it in situ, and the existing portal is far from bad enough to require immediate deletion. It's easy, with the framework in place, to create other boxes and distribute articles between them, and I'd encourage the creator Gazamp to do so. If deleted as a result of this process, then I don't think the refund policy would apply; we'd probably need a time-wasting deletion review. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could be persuaded to go with "delete" if better rationale is presented, but the reasons given above - we have another portal, it's a duplicative portal by the portal platoon, portalspam - are just drive-by comments that make a mockery of the deletion process. Bermicourt (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a subtopic isn't a reason for deletion: Portal:Chemistry and Portal:Science are both clearly worth keeping. Having been created "by a member of the portal platoon" isn't a reason either. The portal shows no obvious errors and, with 155 hand-picked articles, its scope is broad enough. Certes (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Per the arguments above, and: just like Portal:Himalayas and the excellent Portal:Alps, this subject is more than broad enough (geographically, but also culturally and biologically), without any risk of it justifying a faulty "all mountain ranges must have a portal" argument. UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it isn't a redundant portal, rather it's a large subtopic of a large parent topic. I think the scope is wide enough for a portal and it wasn't created by a script. Hut 8.5 11:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator - this portal has vast scope in its own right and has none of the problems of the other, automated portals. There is very little here from the nominator or others to even convince me to let it go as I have others. Gazamp (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I started out by writing "keep". The nominator is wrong: Andes is the world's longest continental mountain range, and it contains many of the highest peaks outside Asia. There are over 170 articles in Category:Mountains of the Andes‎+subcats, and many hundreds more articles on the ecology of the area, and hundreds more again on the human geogrpahy of the Andes. So the scope is plenty broad enough.

The portal uses a curated articles list, rather than being a fork of a navbox, so it's not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. !Votes to delete on that basis are simply wrong.

So the portal as it stands is no a breach of the two main principles on which navboxes have been deleted in recent week. That's why I was going to say "keep".

But frankly, it's still a useless piece of junk. It's a long list of articles related to assorted aspects of the Andes, passed through a piece of software which takes a random subset and displays one at a time the first two paras of the lede, and a picture. There's no attempt to group and sub-group the many topics, no list of those major topics, let alone a comprehensive index of key topics like can be found at e.g. Portal:Harz Mountains. It's just a lucky dip which does zero to assist navigation and in no way meets the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".

The creator @Gazamp is a lovely person, and very committed to en.wp. Dozens of their other portal creations have been speedy deleted because Gazamp graciously accepted that being based on single navboxes, they were all WP:REDUNDANTFORKs. (If only more portal creators had been so helpful!) But the fact this one passes the two tests which so many other portals fail doesn't mean that it comes anywhere near satisfying the WP:PORTAL principle that it add value beyond the main page. It is still no use at all to our readers, and it fails WP:PORTAL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for engaging once again - can I assume by your comments that you would not be prejudiced against the recreation of Portal:Andes if were modelled on Portal:Harz Mountains instead of the automatic portal script? If so, would moving to the Draft or User namespace be permissible? That way, the articles I've already put in would remain so while I (learn how to) reformat the portal.

Any other suggestions are always welcome, Gazamp (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BHG is at least prepared to argue the case rationally and I accept her logic. So I'm going to change my vote to delete but permit recreation if it addresses BHG's points. The subject is clearly broad enough - but the portal needs to be worth using either for readers looking for relevant articles or for project editors improving coverage or, ideally, both. Bermicourt (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, @Gazamp, both for your continued constructiveness and for yet again demonstrating great civility in an uncomfortable situation.

The head article Andes is a Level-3 Vital article, and clearly has huge scope. If we are going to both keep portals and not have a mass cull down to ~100 topics, then Andes should certainly be on the list. So I'd support re-creating a Portal:Andes if it really did add value.

There are several ways of achieving that, e.g.

Drawing on the "list key articles in selected areas" model of Portal:Harz Mountains, which offers a great starting point for navigation
Having multiple {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow}}s
Listing FAs and GAs

There are obviously more possibilities, but that's a start. And those ideas are not mutually exclusive.

If a WP:REFUND helped, then of course, that's always available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think WP:REFUND was available after a broad participation XfD discussion like this one; am I mistaken? UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular at REFUND, requests to restore the pages deleted through XfD are routinely rejected and referred to the closing admin or WP:DRV, because a single admin can't unilaterally overturn the result of a deletion discussion. At best they are restored to draft space. I think this argument is getting dangerously close to arguing that deletion is cleanup. Sure, it would be nice to have a longer list of pages to look at in the vein of Portal:Harz Mountains, but not having that isn't a reason to delete what's there. Especially not if someone is willing to work on it. Hut 8.5 19:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: Sorry, I'm a v rare visitor to WP:REFUND, and it seems to be more narrowly cast than I remembered. In any case, the only unique part of it is the list of articles, which I have just posted on the talk page at List of selected articles.

But this isn't an article-space deletion as cleanup discussion. It's about part of the huge set of non-content pages which are have either been create without due care, or have been abandoned for years. The portals fan club has been insisting on individual triaging, so that what's been happening for weeks, with basically 3 outcomes: 1/ nuke 'cos it's too narrow; 2/ keep 'cos it's worth improving; 3/ WP:TNT because while the topic may be suitable, there;s nothing worth keeping. This is a TNT nomination, as @Auric noted, and which I should have explicitly said in my nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To use your taxonomy, I think the type 3/, TNT nominations are becoming problematic, now that TTH's creations (msot of which also were type 1/) have been largely deleted. Why the rush? I now have 3 very broad subject area portals that I have to try to improve to the point where their MfD might be closed as keep, with the seven-day clock ticking on all 3, with that number likely to grow, and with my trying to work in parallel on not-yet-MfD'd portals that I expect will come here quickly if not improved. It is much harder to create a good portal from scratch than to improve a substandard portal that has already been created. I am familiar with WP:MERCY, but will a pause on Type 3/'s at this point do any great damage to the encyclopedia? UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian, I think your reply unintentionally illustrates the danger very well.

Portals which have been abandoned for years and basically junk are being MFDed. Some editors are trying to keep them by a flurry of activity to improve them just enough to take them over the line for now. But your flurry and that of a few others cannot be sustained across the very wide set of portals needing manual maintenance. So unless there is some long-term maintenance plan in place for each of them, they will just begin a new cycle of decay. Your sincere efforts to apply a last-minute lick-of-paint will be only a blip on the long-term problem.

This isn't some sort of novel or partisan analysis by me. It's the analysis which drove TTH's automation frenzy in the first place: that the overwhelming bulk of high-maintenance portals get low or no maintenance. TTH's solution was automation, which turned out to be crap. But now that his new-made spam is all but gone, it seems to me that the revert-to-manual drive on the rest is simply restoring the very crisis which TTH tried to resolve.

As of this minute, there are 1,582 portals. Currently open MFDs will probably leave us with about 1300–1400 portals. I guess that maybe another 100 will be deleted through new nominations. So I estimate we'll finish this phase with about 1300–1350 portals, which is only about 15% less than before TTH began work.

Where's the extra capacity gonna come from to maintain them? The last few months of outsiders pushing portal cleanup against resistance from portal fans has identified portals as a drama field of marginal utility with pitifully low pageviews, no broad consensus of their future, held in limbo between the ENDPORTALS consensus not to just zap the lot, and the lack of any stable consensus on what they are for, what they should look like, what topics are suitable, and how they should be built. That's not the sort of territory new maintainers will want to sign up for ... so the decay will not only continue, but gather pace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question of what damage a pause would do, but oh well. Danger?? What's the danger? Let's keep it in perspective: no one even noticed this was going on until I pointed it out. I disagree with you, on your other two points: I think we are more likely headed to the 300-500 range in short order (even without Legacypac), and I don't have a problem with that whatsoever. With that much smaller number, it is much more feasible to imagine the current maintainers being able to keep them at acceptable quality (User:Bermicourt is apparently able single-handedly to keep 31 portals at a very high level of quality). But why throw out the baby with the bathwater? Essentially you have a self-fulfilling prophecy: by creating more work for portal maintainers, you guarantee they will not be able to do the work that is required. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian, I thought I answered it v clearly. But I will try rephrasing it.

The damage a pause would do is to allow a few fans to do just enough tweaking to some of the worst pages to avoid immediate deletion, so that the cull would stop and we'd still be left with a huge number of high-maintenance portals with squillions of neglected content-fork subpages, and still no plan for monitoring, triaging or regular maintenenance.

I am trying to create less work for portal maiantainers, but culling the neglected junk and freeing them to concentrate their energies on the portals which are worth saving. I hadn't thought that this phase would leave is with anywhere near as low a number as the 300-500 range you suggest; I'd thought about 1200 was more likely. But he fewer portals, the less the burden.

And you did the community a great service by raising this at VPP in February. But you weren't the first to notice i; I had raised it in September at MFD and at the portals project.

And I'm also a great fan of @Bermicourt's work, because his navigation map-style portals are a) vastly more useful than the baroque magazine-style portals, and b) vastly easier to maintain than the forest-of-content-forked-subpages. The more portals that adopt that style, the more that can be maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a broad enough topic for a portal. Deletion is about whether something should exist, not about the quality/content of what's there (unless it's blatant spam/vandalism obviously). Content issues are not a valid rationale, they're a reason to fix it. The deletion policy is very clear: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Waggers TALK 09:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers: that is a simple but very basic misapplication of WP:ATD, because portals are not content. They are simply tools to showcase content and help navigate it, and there is no greater policy reason to retain a malformed portal than to retain a malformed navbox. Deleting this portal as it exists now will remove precisely zero content.

There is nothing in policy that requires the retention of a navigational device which doesn't fulfil its purpose. See e.g. WP:TFD, where plenty of useless navboxes are deleted every day.

If the current portal was deleted, it could be recreated in literally two edits, one a subst, and the other a copy-paste. There is no need to continue toporesent to read a page called a portal which does not fulfil the function of a portal, as set out at WP:PORTAL, which says "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This is not not enhanced.

See WP:DEL-REASON #13: "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace".

Note also that WP:DEL-REASON begins "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following" . So the policy is not exhaustive.

These attempts to wikilawyer the retention of useless portals do not service to readers. If they succeed, they will simply fuel the case for another WP:ENDPORTALS-style proposal to have a massive cull of the junk that the wikilawyers want to keep in the hope that it will some day be turned into something useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Quoting paragraphs of policy followed by an unfounded accusation of wikilawyering is a bit rich. Please assume good faith and be civil. I stand by my interpretation of WP:ATD - it doesn't exclude navigation tools or other "non content" pages from the principle editing being preferable to deleting.

The point about deletion the listed deletion criteria is a valid one which I accept; these discussions would not be needed if the policy was clear cut and left no room for interpretation. I also accept that the portal could be recreated quickly if required.

This is a portal, in portal space - so I don't understand why the reason concerning "use of the article, template, project, or user namespace" is being quoted here. Waggers TALK 11:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Waggers:, you were the one who chose to venture off down the policy wormhole, and your simplistic one-liner took a little space to rebut. I'd prefer to set that all aside.

So, why exactly do you want to retain this useless page which could be easily recreated if someone wanted to build a meaningful portal? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the simple reason that MfD is primarily about whether a page should exist, not about the content that is on it. Waggers TALK 21:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm under no illusions that anyone will maintain this, but it could possibly be a plausible search term. I see redirecting this as an adequate enough compromise here. I could be wrong, and it is the solution that everyone hates equally. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:51, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Adventures in Missions

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. RL0919 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adventures in Missions

Already been declined four times, and not showing any signs of significant improvement. Rather than decline it a 5th time, bringing it to MFD, although it's probably WP:G11-worthy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The resubmissions are tendentious and the promotional nature would probably warrant a G11. We are here, so delete here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotion. Not for G11 as the reference list includes sort of maybe looking OK sources, but the content is entirely unfixable promotion. If WP:Notable, the content must be based on third party sources, and WP:TNT applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Has only been submitted as promotional content in all variants, and would require WP:TNT from a neutral editor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TNT. Agree that there is enough in the refs to avoid G11, but after stripping out the promotional content there would be nothing left but a bald statement of when it was founded and where it is. Meters (talk) 20:10, 28 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lusaka

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Lusaka

An exceptionally bad piece of driveby portalspam. A very poor WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the head article, with no prior manual version.

Its history is so dire that I will tell the story.

This page is all the work of @The Transhumanist (TTH). It was created on 23 August 2018‎ to build its selected articles list off Template:{{PAGENAME}}, i.e. the navbox Template:Lusaka, which was an abysmal affair consisting almost entirely of links to categories and to sections of the head articles. When the navbox was properly was cleaned up on 14 December 2018 by @Woodensuperman, it contained only two links: Lusaka Province and Timeline of Lusaka. Those two links will have been the full set of "selected articles".

It remained like that through a total of 9 edits by TTH, the last on 10 November 2018‎. During all this time it was eligible for speedy deletion per WP:P2.

Four months after this portal's creation on 30 Dec 2018, @Plastikspork implemented the "delete" closure of TFD debate on Template:Lusaka. That of course broke the portal, so Plastikspork tweaked[27] it to use instead the head article Lusaka.

That was a good faith attempt to rescue something after the deletion, and I am sure that Plastikspork was unaware of possibly ill effects. But unfortunately it meant that the portal was now set to hoover up the first link in any list item on the head article. And that includes the list of twin towns: Dushanbe, Beirut, Los Angeles, Izhevsk.

So since 30 December 2018, the full set of 7 "selected" articles on Portal:Lusaka consists of: the politicians Rupiah Banda and Michael Sata, the African-American Jet (magazine) ... and 4 cities which are not even in Africa, never mind Zambia, let alone part of Lusaka. Try it yourself.

And if at any point in the 8 months since this page's creation the portalspammer @The Transhumanist did even a quick flick through of the selected articles, the obvious folly of the results didn't prompt him to fix anything. That's why I call this "driveby portalspam". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. When I saw this pop up on TTH's talkpage I checked the page before checking the nomination. Jet Magazine showed as the featured article which was a "what the hell" moment. Then I scrolled to a Russian then a Central Asian city. I looked at the code and saw it was (once) based on a template (but the word template is commented out which leaves the head article as the source) - which makes no sense because who would put those pages on a template about an African city. Relying on the head article pulls all kinds of random stuff. For example I was able to add Newspaper as a featured article for Portal:Kathmandu by wikilinking the word in the head article. This perfectly shows how actions far outside the portal (like deleting a template or adding a wikilink) will bust the portals without any edit to the portal that alerts any watchers. The watchers have to visit and read the portal regularly which is the exact opposite of the promised self maintaining status we were promised. I watch 40,000 article pages mostly because of my AfC activity and could, if I needed to, revert anything that broke those pages. A person could watchlist all the automatic self breaking portals and you would never know when they automatically break because of changes to the templates and pages they are based on. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basing a portal on all the wikilinks in an article is such a poor idea that it makes all the other auto-methods look sane. No prejudice to a hand-curated portal, when enough content is available, although our African content is currently woeful. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-08-23 02:38:13 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Lusaka. Pldx1 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is not just pointless, but misleading. It is almost devoid of coverage, the selected articles include totally irrelevant links and the "need help?" link is not the place to go for questions on Lusaka. Dear oh dear, this is the kind of rubbish that gives portals a bad name.Bermicourt (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough content to support a portal.--Auric talk 15:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another portal that requires a silver bullet. This isn't a zombie portal, but it is some sort of shape-shifting monster that wanders between continents and apparently eats human brains like a zombie. I won't repeat what the previous editors have said about really bizarre links. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone check the weather at the South Pole to see if there is snow? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking category: to help identify other portals which may have similar issues, I have hacked Module:Excerpt slideshow (again!) to populate Category:Automated portals with article list built using eponymous article.

It will probably take between 6 and 24 hours for the category to full populate. Current live population count = 0. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:DYNAMITE case, approaching P2. SITH (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Paul McDonald has objected several times to me calling TTH "the Portalspammer". So please look at this portal, Paul. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter how bad a Wiki portal/article/file/whatever may be, that is never an excuse to be abusive toward the editor who created it. No content is so bad that it should give others free license to violate the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Delete the page? Sure. Do so in a way that you can "Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree."--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paul, this is a spammed portal. Mass-created junk. The person who created all this is the portalspammer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 4 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Classical architecture

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. Seems like most people here think that WP:POG is not met/the portal is redundant to another one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Classical architecture

This is a semi-automated portal created and abandoned by TTH. It is solely built off of Outline of classical architecture and an embedded list inside the portal.

Portal:Classical architecture's embedded list
New Classical architecture Atlas (architecture) Classical order Euthynteria The Institute of Classical Architecture and Art Superposed order Term (architecture)

As it is a semi-automated creation (the list is just a duplicate of the articles within Category:Classical architecture), I propose that this portal be deleted without prejudice to recreating a human-curated portal, in accordance with whatever future criteria the community may have agreed to at that time. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates scope of Portal:Architecture. Only allow recreation if/when that portal is so awesome and full it needs a spinout and interested editors agree in a talk discussion. Legacypac (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-15 09:56:37 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality: Portal:Classical architecture. Pldx1 (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for this when we have Portal:Architecture (without regard to whether we need that portal). No need for portals based solely on outlines (without regard to whether we need Outline of Classical Architecture). No need for robotic portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not aware of any consensus that outlines form an inadequate basis for a portal. There is plenty of material on Classical architecture. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: the goal is to gain consensus for that. I just read your comments here. This is textbook WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I would say that the purpose of a Portal and an Outline should not be conflated. Outlines are supposed to reflect our wide coverage of a subject through an empirical list, but Portals are supposed to a place where readers can find our quality content on a topic. Copying from one to make content for the other simply does not work (just how it would not work were this a navbox).
In conclusion, this portal is currently indiscriminate when it should be selective. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if it were selective it would still be argued for deletion on grounds of being a subset! These arguments are getting like a key where all the routes lead to DELETE PORTAL. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were the contention being made that I feel that this is too small of a scope, I would agree with you. However, I do not feel that is the case here. This is still a semi-automated portal creation. All TTH did was use {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, figured out that Template:Classical architecture is a redlink, and just applied User:The Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js (my guess). There isn't much to this portal tbh it seems. You are very welcome to restart this portal in a non-semi-automated fashion per the nomination statement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: The Transhumanist is one of the authors of the outline. One of the sensible ways of creating a portal (and indeed it is hard to see how to do it without at least doing this very roughly) is to create (on paper or in one's head) a rough outline. The Transhumanist and others put these outlines into mainspace, while mine reside on my laptop hard-drive. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I don't mean to argue with you, but I feel like you misunderstand the purpose of outlines. Per WP:Outlines, Most Wikipedia outlines are reverse outlines. Traditional outlines are usually created as a planning tool for a writing project, such as for writing an essay assigned to students by their teacher, or by an author writing a book. Such outlines are developed before the document is composed... In academic and writing fields, reverse outlines serve as a revision tool, for improving an existing work, and while they work well for this purpose on Wikipedia, Wikipedia outlines are intended as published documents in their own right. They may be called portals outlines, but these were not intended to serve the purposes of portals. The similarities between them are there, yes I admit. Combining both leads to an inferior version of both. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use mainspace outlines at all, so may well be misunderstanding what they are for, but a well-constructed outline seems ideal fodder for a portal, at least if combined with a quality filter. Personally I'd take the outline lists and hard code them into the portal for ease of editing, but that would also fix them in stone, which is the problem with ageing portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more of a concern with portals without maintainers. This is why we need to keep only the ones crafted from hand in a not-even-remotely-automated process. I'm bouncing around some ideas for what that could look like through User:MJL/Handle portals with care. My vaguely I am thinking it will probably need (1) several templates, (2) ~~a gadget or~~ userscript, (3) a css page, (4) a bot to monitor this process, and ~~(5) a site-wide 60-day RFC to determine consensus on the whole thing (with like monitors/clerks throughout)~~. That's just what I have off the top of my head tbh. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Scratch some.of that. It a little much. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I considered !voting delete on the grounds that the list collapsed above is short, but then I scrolled down and found plenty of other article excerpts, neatly organised. In general, outlines seem to make a good basis for a portal. As for redundancy: yes, the same articles lie beneath, but the portal has a very different presentation which may attract readers to explore the subject further in a way that a dry list of wikilinks can't. It's like categories and navboxes being "redundant": they may contain similar articles but they do different jobs. I suggest getting a third opinion from some architecture experts, and I'll happily change my mind if they disagree with me. Certes (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals based on outlines are not a good idea. For example, Ancient Greek/Roman building types include an Orchestra. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the bug report. I have unlinked Orchestra from the outline. Many of Wikipedia's pages have inappropriate links (I lost count of how many primates delivering mass I fixed) but improving them is often a better solution than deleting the page. Certes (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the orchestra is part of a Greek theatre equivalent to the stage. I have amended the outline. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Espresso, I am currently preparing my next nomination. However, I upon reviewing this edit, I realized something. If I wikilinked orchestra, wouldn't that just bring us back to where we started? If I wasn't aware of this conversation, and I stumbled upon that outline, I'd have done it by now. It's not incredibly obvious on either Outline of classical_architecture nor Portal:Classical_architecture the two pages are even related. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Someone editing with knowledge & care should never link orchestra (the modern meaning) to orchestra (the part of a Greek theatre)! It's not like Legacypac's newspaper example, where an innocuous edit had unforseen consequences. It's not clear what one does about careless, poor edits -- the same is true of someone who, say, wrongly changes stats in the lead of an article that's extracted into a portal. The downside of getting updates is getting vandalism and bad edits too. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal looks good, provides relevant information. The deletion rationale does not seem like any reason to delete a portal to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Portal is redundant to Portal:Architecture, contrary to the WP:POG guideline's prohibition. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:POG prohibits this portal? POG is about portal content. The only argument in there against retaining this portal might be the subject of a portal should be ... broad. There is no prohibition on a portal being a subset of another, e.g. Portal:India within Portal:Asia or Portal:Physics within Portal:Science. Certes (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals ". . .should not be redundant to another portal, should not cover too narrow a scope . . ." UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

prohibit was probably a bad choice of words, UnitedStatesian. WP:POG simply just advises against these types of things for the reasons you just outlined. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to the broader and older Portal:Architecture, which gets 10x as many page views. If we are going to have portals at all, they should be ones that can attract some readers. --RL0919 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another drive-by spammed fork of an existing page, iced with a few additions from a category screen grab. A actually-curated portal on this topic would look very different, and in the meantime the older Portal:Architecture does a better job than this iced spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 10 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Precambrian

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Precambrian

Currently a pointless semi-automated pseudo-portal. Previously a poor-quality abandoned manual one.

As currently structured, this is a set of semi-automated portal built solely off an embedded list of subtopics, in the form of 9 era and periods:

That's not a portal; it's just a set of the first-level subheads, which would be better represented as a single-line TOC or navbox.

This is list is set out much more clearly in the head article Precambrian:

A graphic at the top right of the page
A list of one-para intros at Precambrian#Subdivisions
A broad-scope navbox at the bottom of the page: Template:Geological history of Earth

Each of those of those elements does a much better job as a navigational hub than this. I can't call it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, because it's more like a redundant table of contents.

Before being "improved" by @The Transhumanist, this was an abandoned incomplete manual portal. Here's the last version before TTH started work on it: [28]. Note the empty intro section, the weirdly titled section heads "Selected article on the Precambrian world and its legacies" and "Selected article on the Precambrian in human science, culture and economics", and the stack of sections below which are either completely empty or have headings with no content. This is a template which hasn't been filled in.

The manual version has few subpages: see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Precambrian, with only 4 Portal:Precambrian/Natural world articles and only Portal:Precambrian/Science, culture, and economics articles. The last edit to any of those article pages was in December 2015.

That's how the portal was from 2015 to 2108, when TTH began morphing it into its current form. There's no version which is worth keeping; every one of them is waste of reader's time.

The topic may be suitable for a portal, if someone actually builds one which adds real value to the B-class head article Precambrian, and genuinely meets the WP:PORTAL principle "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... rtaher than massively degraded versions, like this page.

So I propose that this portal and all its subpages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time'. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The usual conditions apply, without prejudice to a subsequent manual portal. This portal was converted from one broken form to another by the portal platoon. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old portal, 22 subpages, created 2015-06-29 21:00:45 by User:Abyssal, then abandoned, then converted into this useless thing. Without prejudice etc. Portal:Precambrian. Pldx1 (talk) 08:08, 26 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Juanes (2nd nomination)

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 12:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Juanes

Old from 2012 single artist portal. No one worked on it after the day it was created in October 2012 until it was nominated for deletion last year. Then TTH turned it into a single page design. Selected articles can only be seen with a two step purge action, but they include his band (already linked from the intro) his actress wife's bio and Life (UK TV series). I was really surprised to see a UK TV show, but way down in that article you can find this singer narrated a spanish version of the TV show so he is name checked.

You can click edit see the 4 selected articles, list of random songs and random albums selected. This is a very inconvenient way to explore this singer's life and music. The head article for him and the page for his band do a lot better job. These randomly selected songs and albums can be easily accessed via his article with context and control of what you get to read. On the article you can see all the images, multiple nav boxes and refs etc. The article is a much better portal into this artist then any portal space page could ever be. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Juanes was the last MFD. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a heritage portal broken by the portal platoon, and as a single-person portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 19 subpages, created 2012-10-14 18:13:35 by User:Luisnh1210. Not a navigation tool, while it should be. Portal:Juanes. Pldx1 (talk) 08:11, 26 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.

Old business

Everything below this point is old business; the 7-day review period that began 10:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC) ended today on 25 September 2024. Editors may continue to add comments until the discussion is closed but they should keep in mind that the discussion below this marker may be closed at any time without further notice. Discussions that have already been closed will be removed from the page automatically by Legobot and need no further action.

April 25, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Pigs (2nd nomination)

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. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Pigs

A pair of automated pseudo-portals, each a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of a navbox and of the head article.

Portal:Pigs: The selected articles list is drawn solely from the navbox {{Pigs}}, which is transcluded in the head article Pig.
Portal:Waste: The selected articles list is drawn solely from the navbox {{Waste}}, which is transcluded in the head article Waste

In each case, the article and the navbox are each much better navigational tools than this page, because they display all the links simultaneously, whereas the portal displays them only one-at-time. The preview function of the portal is only redundant, because for readers who are not logged in (i.e. the overwhelming majority) mouseover on link shows the picture and the start of the lede.

Waste is a Level-4 vital article (i.e. in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics), and Pig is a Level-5 VA (i.e. in the 10,001–50,000 range of priority topics). Given the very poor shape of many much higher-priority portals, there is no reason to expect an influx of editors to curate and maintain portals on these topics.

However, those issues are probably best decided at an RFC, so I propose that this page be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Portal:Waste has been speedy deleted per WP:G7 at the request of the creator @Northamerica1000. North, so you want this discussion to remain open to discuss Portal:Pigs, or do you want to speedy it too? Your choice, just asking in case you hadn't spotted that there this discussion is of two pages created by you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-10-23 01:19:21 by User:Northamerica1000, to be deleted as fork of another navigation tool. Portal:Pigs.

About the G7 deletion: at [G7-criterion], we have If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content of the page was added by its author. At [wmflabs] we see that one author contributed 2,685 bytes (84.4%). But another one contributed 392 bytes (12.3%) with the following edit: {{Transclude selected current events | %spig%s | %spigs%s| %shog%s | %shogs%s | %spork%s | %sbacon%s | %sham%s | %shams%s | days=45 | header={{Box-header colour|In the news }}|max=6}} . Using such a poor selection chain was a major reason to delete this contribution (selecting "sea pig", "blind pig", "dancing pig", "ham radio", "Taylor's ham", was clearly harmful). As a result, User:Hut 8.5 decided that such a major reason to delete was substantial and thus declined the G7-request. Let us wait another week, the world will not crumble. Pldx1 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 declined the G7 because it has survived MfD, per their edit summary, not because someone else had added content. * Pppery * _{has returned} 23:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Pppery, how are you doing to replace when applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions, which is policy, by something like: "no creator is allowed to a change of mind and require the G7-deletion of a page that survived to a MfD proposed by someone else" ? But, you know, there is no deadline. Pldx1 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that question should have been directed to Hut 8.5, rather than me. * Pppery * _{has returned} 11:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages which have survived deletion discussions don't qualify for G7. The speedy deletion policy doesn't list them as an applicable criterion in that situation. Furthermore there is a reason for this. G7 is only a courtesy, not a right, since editors don't own their contributions. If a page survived a deletion discussion then that means that some other editors think the page has value and should not be deleted, which means the deletion isn't uncontroversial. This portal was kept by a substantial margin in an MfD closed less than a month ago. If you don't like this then WT:CSD is that way. Hut 8.5 18:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The pig portal is still there, and the waste portal is not, because the pigs ate the waste. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I previously nominated this and four other mammal portals for deletion and the result was a nearly unanimous Keep. I recognize that BHG's analysis is better than mine was, but isn't this nomination a little too soon after the previous Keep? Aren't we relitigating this prematurely? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the breadth-of-subject area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. If the reason for the nom. has changed, a new MfD is appropriate and not a relitigation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Pigs - clearly a broad topic. The format of the current portal and the way it was created means it might need some work, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. WaggersTALK 10:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Waggers:, your assertion that format of the current portal and the way it was created means it might need some work, but that's not a valid reason for deletion is simply wrong. The consensus to delete portals forked off navboxes was established only two weeks ago at one of the biggest-scope and most widely-attended MFDs ever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BrownHairedGirl: That was a separate MfD and this portal was not included in the nomination. The consensus there relates specifically to the portals that were nominated there, not to a general principle. It was not consensus for a new deletion criterion to be added to the deletion policy. WaggersTALK 11:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, @Waggers, the principle was the whole basis of the nomination, and when I checked the first 20 !votes, the principle was explicitly approved by 7 and disapproved by none. Those two MFDs were advertised on WP:CENT

The same principle has been upheld in many dozens of MFD discussions since. It is plain tendentious that you try to reargue that point from the ground up after multiple MFDs; it's simply wasting the community's time in wikilawyering against a clear consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus that the deletion policy should be changed, then it should be changed. That consensus has not been established and MfD is not the place to do it. As things stand, the format of a portal or the way it was created are irrelevant to whether or not it should exist. What matters is scope, and this topic has sufficient scope for a portal to exist. Waggers TALK 08:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newer, very low-readership portal that is redundant to the long-standing, (somewhat) higher-readership portals for mammals and animals. --RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (2nd nomination)

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: No consensus to delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:H. P. Lovecraft

One of the last portals built old style around the time the Portals project was rebooted. We have repeatedly found that single authors/artists/singers etc as topics lack the depth and scope required under WP:POG portal guidelines. The head article is a better starting point for the reader to explore the life and works of Lovecraft. Readers agree because this portal only pulls 231 views in 30 days compared to the head article with 2,934 editors, 850 watchers, 132,604 pageviews (30 days). The portal lacks such useful navigational and summary aids like the great infobox found at the article. Instead the portal is the article "lite" giving the readers much less information then the article. This discussion has been unbundled from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:George Orwell Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maintained, 51 subpages, created 2018-05-06 13:56:50 by User:Auric, maintained by User:Auric. [pageviews] Pldx1 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Due to [pageviews] i.e. $9>8>5$ , User:Legacypac was wrong when giving the 2nd place to H. P. Lovecraft in the bundled nomination: Lovecraft should have been in the third one. FIVE views a day. How wrong are the readers, aren't they ! Pldx1 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I have stated before, this portal provides a good bridge between his article and the many free images on Commons related to him and his works. While my portal is an attractive portal, there is no way to drive traffic here, except with outgoing links, a problem all portals share. --Auric talk 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I have written on numerous occasions, I see no reason to delete all single-person portals. HP Lovecraft and the universe(s) he created, and which due to lack of copyright continue to be written in (eg Gaiman's "A Study in Emerald", and many less well-known works), seem like a potentially broad enough topic base. The portal is maintained, looks attractive and has 10 selected articles (though personally I wouldn't have included non-Euclidean geometry), 6 bios & 15 images, a little on the slight side but could probably be developed further. I love the "Invoke the Eternal Chaos" re-randomise link, which suggests the portal creator cares about the topic. The only major problem I can see is that the head article is peppered with orange-level tags. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "orange-level tags"?--Auric talk 11:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags with orange bands on the left, such as Template:More citations needed. They are not permitted in any article featured in a portal, per "have no tags displayed denoting clean-up, copyright violation, controversy or similar" in the portal guidelines. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are none in the lede, where you would expect them in a problem article. There a few, but since there are few articles without one, you'd think the portal list to be much smaller. --Auric talk 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a small orange band like the one just below could forbid an article to be displayed in a portal would largely simplify the work here at MfD. But this would probably be controversial. Pldx1 (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to be merited, otherwise one can simply remove it. And many of the sectional "citations missing" ones can reasonably be removed by adding the cn tag to the specific statements that need referencing, as long as there are only a few. But that's always been the way we've played it on the main page and in (other) portals. I can't count the number of interesting pages I've had regretfully to exclude because someone had slapped an orange tag on the page, and I couldn't see an immediate way to fix the issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric:, isn't that effective bridge between the article and commons (and the other sister projects, ftm) in the article already, at the bottom? UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I don't see a slideshow there. Could you point it out?--Auric talk 14:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say there was a slideshow, just a bridge. I don't appreciate having an honest question answered with sarcasm. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being sarcastic. When I am, I use the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.--Auric talk 00:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is a well-maintained narrow-subject portal that is a good slideshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are we deleting well-maintained portals which pass WP:POG? SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This portal certainly does NOT meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Awesome as he is, he is no William Shakespeare or Jane Austen. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A single writer is not a broad topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope is narrow, but not too narrow - there are sufficient selected articles, pictures etc to give visitors something different each time they view it. It's well maintained, not doing any harm. No compelling reason to delete. Waggers TALK 14:26, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Blocks

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Blocks

Seems this page hasn't had a clear or utilized purpose from even when it was created in 2009. Steel1943 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be something of a nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, archive only. Once was used and useful, before being deprecated due to other changes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Really?? I think when you say "once was used", I think you meant "was used once". Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That’s more than enough. Is it your intention to bring everything unused through MfD? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, just the stuff that seemed to never have any value to the project at any given point. Thus, I see no purpose for this page to remain, even as an archive. Even with the one use, it doesn't seem that the inquiry got the attention that was intended by the purpose of the page. (I was originally considering just redirecting this page elsewhere, but due to its lack of use, I didn't see that helpful or to have any utility as a search term.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Confusing and pointless. I've been waiting for someone to explain how deleting this would break something, somewhere. But they've had their chance. The edit filter has never blocked or degrouped anyone in the history of enwiki. The only people ever reporting anything at this page have either been blocked on another wiki, merely had their edits disallowed (for which we have WP:EF/FP/R of course), or have just been randomly clicking at buttons. Granted, it's not an urgent matter that we get rid of this, but here we are, so let's be done with it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:15, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ebola translation task force

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: Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/Ebola translation task force. RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ebola translation task force

This isn't a task force per WP:TASKFORCE, and it doesn't seem like this page ever gained membership. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stillborn, regardless of whether it was a task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to ~~Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses/Ebola translation task force~~ (elsewhere). Accidentally created in the wrong place. Worthwhile efforts are clear on the page and there are no time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the WikiProject at WT:WikiProject Viruses#Wikipedia:Ebola translation task force. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why WikiProject Viruses and not WikiProject Translation studies, WikiProject Medicine or WikiProject Africa? Just curious. --Nessie (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First quick guess. Second guess would be move under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force as that has a tag at Talk:Ebola virus disease claiming high importance, with all others claiming lower than high. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force#Wikipedia:Ebola_translation_task_force. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fairly confident that if you move the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses/Ebola translation task force, it will sit dormant forever. WikiProject Med's Translation Task Force is probably your best best (as you suggested above). If editors involved in that project don't feel the page is useful to them, then it's probably not of use to anyone, and I'd advocate deleting or moving to Guaka's userspace, since they seem to be almost the only contributor. Guaka seems basically inactive though, so not sure how much good that would do... Thanks for bringing this up! Ajpolino (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sitting dormant forever is not a problem. There are no time limits. There is no good reason to outright delete this, as it is productive work directed at improving content that still needs that improvement. Oppose userfication, within the best match WikiProject is where it should go. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is to move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/Ebola translation task force. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 4 May 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.

April 24, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Tor

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: Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Tor

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would block read access to Wikipedia as discussed on the Talk Page, and I can't see any reason why it would make sense to do that, given that some users may be using it to bypass content blocks by censors. It also looks like these IPs are not active either...

Swil999 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. It may need updating, but I see no reason to remove the page. What this does is allow people to edit without using the Tor network, ie an exit node operator on the same IP can still edit without using Tor. This actually allows them to both edit Wikipedia and run a node for the rest of the Internet. For users using Tor, they will automatically switch to another exit node, of which there are many, in order to read Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - User:OverlordQ - This appears to be your creation. Do you have an opinion? What is its purpose? Is it actually harmful, as implied, or is it useful? We should only delete if this will actually prevent access by readers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Any harm is only done if someone actually adds this to the configuration. As it is, just entries that can be added., Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark as historical or a failed proposal (if it was ever actually proposed). It's a bad idea, but being a bad idea is not a reason for deletion and I can't see any other reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 13 May 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.

April 23, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basque Country (greater region)

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. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Basque Country (greater region)

Never completed old portal with red linked sections. 2 page views in 30 days suggests no one is more interested in reading this then anyone is in finishing it. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This portal was never alive, and is therefore a stillborn portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2006-11-06 20:38:18 by User:Husond. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Basque Country (greater region). Pldx1 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to Keep it. True, it's quiet but then that's hardly surprising in a topic with relatively few editors who have to spend a large amount of their on-site time chasing edit warriors spilling over from the Spanish wiki. It saps your energy. That and continued discussions about closing down portals, it's hardly is an incentive to editors to spruce up a portal site. In the past it has been useful and led to the creation of several new good pages. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As is, this portal provides a grand total of ONE article, ONE biography and ONE picture. This cannot be described as an useful navigation tool. And it doesn't seem that anyone will come with any remedy. Pldx1 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion about deleting the portal, but it has the same problem as virtually all pages about the Basque Country: it assumes that the country has well-defined territorial limits, which is a huge lie. --Jotamar (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a controversial topic? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who you ask. But you have to be fairly far out of the mainstream to suggest that there isn't some linguistic-cultural-ethnic-thingy that connects Basque people. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to say, there's no problem with the existence of some sort of Basque cultural area; the problem is with its exact geographical limits. Anyway, that's just tangential to the present discussion. --Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mildly so. What is the gain of deleting it really? The topic is relevant enough, with a wide number of related topics that may benefit from having a 'parent' page. Admittedly, it is not very functional at the moment, but may offer an scope for improvement in the future. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around since 2006. When will this magically be improved? When will it start lulling readers exactly? Legacypac (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's a mismatch in expectations? We (I mean most editors of Basque related topics) never saw it was a means of pulling in readers but as a "meeting space" for editors working on Basque articles to coordinate stuff like what articles are needed. In that sense the answer to your question is, help crack down on edit warriors sapping out time and energy and we'll have time and energy to tackle article creation again. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, a portal with ONE article, ONE biography and ONE picture may offer an scope for improvement in the future. But it doesn't offer a navigation tool, as it should do. Pldx1 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need a Wikiproject or taskforce in some other wikiproject. The portal will not help you with that. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, you assume we have the capacity to set up a wikiproject or taskforce. The portal is/was a quick way of doing that that required little overhead in setting it up. But by all means, keep honing Wikipedia into a place for the big guys only with lots of resources. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz, please see WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Thanks for confirming that there was no intention for it ever to fulfil that core purpose. As Legacypac noted, the way to create a meeting place is to set up a Wikiproject or taskforce in some other wikiproject. It's not hard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Keep Quite frankly, we should be directing our energy to improving instead of destroying - that's how we built this encyclopedia in the first place. This portal has obviously seen much better days - and I was surprised to see all those red links - but that's no reason to delete. If anything, its mere existence is an invitation for someone to come in the future and breathe some new life into it. Hús ö nd 11:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, it's a pity that you didn't disclose that you created this portal and then abandoned it.

As I set out below[29], this portal has been abandoned for over 11 years. I see no evidence that it has ever seen much better days; the content simply hasn't been there.

As to the notion that its mere existence is an invitation for someone to come in the future and breathe some new life into it, the evidence of 11 years abandonment is very clear that this sort of "fix my abandoned page" invitation has not worked, just as it has not worked for the hundreds of other abandoned portals which have been brought to MFD in recent months. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You almost make it sound like I left this portal in a basket on the doorstep of an orphanage. Thank you for reminding me that yes, I did create it. It was a time where there was greater involvement of the community in smaller projects like this, and where the spirit of improving rather than destroying was the driving force for growth of this entire place. You fail to provide a valid reason for having this portal deleted - other than what appears to be a personal pet hate. If we had less of that attitude around here driving away contributors then perhaps portals wouldn't lie abandoned. Hús ö nd 20:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Husond, you left the portal as barebones start on which others could build. But nobody has built, so it remains just a shell. That's no criticism of you, just a fact that nobody picked up the baton.

This 2018 MFD did not cause the neglect. It's the other way around; eleven years of neglect triggered the MFD. The reason for the neglect is simple enough: hard anyone reads portals. In nearly all cases, the head article gets between 100 and 2,000 more views than the portal. See the daily pageviews for Jan–Feb 2019: Portal:Basque (as it was the called) got 10 views per day, but the article Basque Country (greater region) got 1,213 pageviews per day.

It's a pity that you choose to personalise the discussion. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Basque Country (greater region). This abandoned portal does not enhance, so that is the reason for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you choose to personalise the discussion, which forces me to also personalise the discussion. Anyway, again, still no valid reason to delete, just ranting and personal opinions. Hús ö nd 00:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These sub-/trans-national reqions do not meet the breadth-of-subject area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic has sufficient scope for a portal. Clearly needs a lot of work but if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Editing can improve the page, so there's no policy-based reason for deleting it as far as I can see. Waggers TALK 14:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".

This a severe case. As noted below, it is just a slim set of decade-old abandoned WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.

If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off to start afresh, without this relic in the way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This fake portal shows no more than ONE snippet of an article, ONE snippet of a biography and ONE picture. Great occasion for User:Waggers for saying Clearly needs a lot of work ... while implying "but surely not by me, don't dream too much". A portal is required to provide a navigation tool, but who cares ? How many readers would be sufficiently foolish to look at a Wikipedia portal ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, all of that can be remedied by editing, and that's what the deletion policy says we should do. If the portal survives this deletion attempt I'll be happy to review and expand the selected content. Waggers TALK 08:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice to re-creation. Old portal created[30] in November 2006‎. It has a minimal set of subpages (see Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Basque Country (greater region)) which have been abandoned for over 11 years:

Portal:Basque Country (greater region)/Selected picture, same image since 2007
Portal:Basque Country (greater region)/Selected biography, same topic since 2007[31]
Portal:Basque Country (greater region)/Selected article, same topic since Feb 2008[32]

WP:POG requires that portasl be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 consecutive updates.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it doesn't meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern curated portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics, or a curated list of topics, such as Portal:Harz Mountains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 11 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Autumn

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) 19:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Autumn

(convenience links: subject articles Autumn and Winter)

Delete. Where, you ask, are Portal:Spring and Portal:Summer? Perhaps they were smart enough to realize that multi-page portals like these are a terrible way to navigate the seasons, because they do not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was working on these two but did not get the nom statements done because I found the entire Easter category in Autumn and went to fix that. These are grab bags of randomness Legacypac (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easter does fall in the Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere. Which illustrates another problem with these portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed which is why I don't think Easter should be under spring either. Winter where? I live in Malaysia part time where we have no winter at all. The topics are so locational they make no sense for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

- Old portal, 39 subpages, created 2008-09-09 13:35:07 by User:Juliancolton. A joke, not a navigation tool. Portal:Autumn

- Old portal, 47 subpages, created 2008-12-22 17:08:20 by User:Juliancolton. Another joke, not a navigation tool. Portal:Winter

Pldx1 (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per picture examples. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pldx1. Call my work a "joke" and you'll get no cooperation from me. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. The famous Winter toque of Philip II of Spain and the Autumn Shaun Carney were looking as jokes. But they weren't, since you say so. Pldx1 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deferring !vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear User:Juliancolton. Displaying King Philip II of Spain, wearing the Spanish Tocado, late 1500s. Painting by Sofonisba Anguissola as a way to describe what winter could be was not a joke. At least you have asserted that it was not. Please, could you elaborate further and explain what it was. Pldx1 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've lost me. Where do you see that image or text in Portal:Winter? I don't remember having anything to do with it, and Special:Whatlinkshere/File:Portrait of Philip II of Spain by Sofonisba Anguissola - 002b.jpg shows no usage related to the portals in question. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Portal:Winter, and click on the arrows just below Selected general articles. And the winter toque of Philip II will appear. You will also get the Patbingsu (팥빙수) page. I understand that shaved ice red beans dessert contains ice, but this is rather an all seasons dessert, with a probable peak during hot seasons. Perhaps should we add Greentea patbingsu to the Autumn portal, due to the color harmony of this one with the concept of Autumn. Moreover, adding Spring and Autumn period as well as Autumn and Spring would provide some more internationalization. We can also say: stop the experiment, this doesn't work. Pldx1 (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images in this MfD appear to all be derived from the automated versions of the portals. For example, see This version of Portal:Winter and the "winter" images herein are nowhere to be found. As such, the use of images such as this within the discussion may serve to bias the discussion, whereby users may only focus on the present version of the portal and not think to check if there are any pre-automated versions existent. Perhaps this type of illustration should not be used in future discussions, because it's not presenting an entirely accurate representation relative to the actual history of the portal. The images and commentary about them herein is used in a mocking, scolding manner, to promote the deletion of the portals, but a representation of images that were present prior to the portals' automation is unfortunately entirely omitted, and as such, likely not considered. Now we have a portal creator being criticized herein for the presence of images that they did not add, and being asked for an explanation about them, as though if they did something wrong. Pldx1, please consider researching matters more thoroughly in the future, because user's should not be subjected to queries to explain themselves for actions they did not perform. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete, unless Juliancolton cares to convert me. Seems a very odd idea for a portal, particularly per Legacypac's point that the specific dates depend on the hemisphere. The selected articles on winter in the hand-curated version are a rather ill-assorted selection, partly based on featured articles on minor/limited relevance topics, partly on festivals that are only applicable to a single hemisphere. Autumn seems even more random. However, reviewers should note that Pldx1's comments above apply to the automated version, which is entirely different from the original one by Juliancolton. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What a typical discussion about portals! Top and foremost, it fair to quote and illustrate what the readers are facing to when they open this or that portal. Moreover, saying the images in this MfD appear to all be derived from the automated versions of the portals is plainly wrong and deceptive. For a simple reason: while Winter has been automated, Autumn remains based on the original subpages. Both portals, created 2008 by User:Juliancolton went abandoned circa 2010. Nine years later, at Portal:Fall/Selected article/1, we have apple. One of the founding articles of Wikipedia ! This article contains four times winter, three times spring, three times summer and two times autumn. A great autumn topic, indeed. At Portal:Fall/Selected article/7, we have the already quoted Shaun Carney picture, but autumn is never used in this article. At Portal:Fall/Selected article/8, we have 2005 Oklahoma vs. Texas football game. This great article about Autumn was deleted 2017, but is piously kept at the portal (more probably, this went unnoticed, since nobody cares about). Therefore, pretending that "old style Portal:Autumn is a navigation tool" sounds as a joke, no more, no less. Concerning the other one, TTH took the rightful editorial decision of nuking everything circa April 2018. The subpages remain here and can be read by anyone who want to. And noboby argued against the nuking, there was nothing to argue. The automated version used as substitute has its own failures, and the result is another joke. Finally, we have a portal creator being criticized herein [...] and being asked for an explanation [...] as though if they did something wrong. This another deceptive manner of rewriting the events. Both portals were created 2008 by User:Juliancolton. This is a fact. Then they went abandoned circa 2010. This is another fact and a great occasion to invoke WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. And when someone criticized my description of the 2019 versions as a joke rather than as a navigation tool, it was only fit to ask for an explanation. Keep focused on what is discussed, and --maybe-- have a bingsu, we are either in winter or in summer, aren't we ? Pldx1 (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These were abandoned portals, which were then replaced by automation, and automated portals are a non-starter (or a stopper). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful topic for a portal, given that most subjects will only be related by an arbitrary temporal alignment with autumn (in part of the world). --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 2 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Domestic & General

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, salt. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Domestic & General

No improvement since 7 December version. Article was attempted to be trimmed but then it was restored back and resubmitted a ridiculous number of times. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The recent history of this draft shows that unregistered editors, probably the author or another employee, have repeatedly removed the COI template from the draft, but that it has been restored each time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Extended-Confirmed Protect in draft and article space, so that only a neutral editor can write an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly meets WP:CORP. It is WP:Reference bombed, which I detest, because it makes an assessment way more difficult that is reasonable. Has it been tendentiously resubmitted without substantial improvement? If yes, show diffs. If no, keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the most recent submissions:

Oct 1 decline to Oct 18 decline: Added: CEO, sentence on IPO, Removed: 2 clauses on products.

To Nov 16 decline: Added: One source on the acquisition, one source on awards.

To Dec 7: Large diff including addition of refbombed "support charities", two cites for awards and additions about employees.

To Jan 3: Large diff. The most promotional sections (including the two added in the last diff) were deleted.

I think the trimmed version might be an OK base. The sections were restored twice, when the speedy was declined and by a recent changes patroller. IMO the best option here is to stubify by removing the most promotional language, as was done ~~twice~~ three times, not removing COI templates (like the latter two). If the repeated submissions are too frequent, then deletion is probably the best, but it's only been submitted twice this year. On the other hand, while I think it can be cleaned up, I don't think the current article content is really that much value, and a WP:TNT of the history and most of the text would not be out of order. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took a more detailed look at the first stubify and I think the writing is too confused and still somewhat promotional. A full stubify should take it further, and if the rest of the MfDers think there's no content worth saving then it should be deleted without the possibility of REFUND. No comment on whether the editors have behavioral issues that need to be addressed but if they do then they should be blocked if possible, and deletion isn't a substitute for that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alpha. That’s completely in line for my line of thinking for these sorts of new draft topics by newcomers. They completely do not have onboard good advice on how to write a new topic, AfC communication appears ineffective, and every round they seem to dig the article deeper into the same wrong direction. I reckon newcomers need to be told to improve existing content related to their new topic before starting a new orphan page on their new topic. Deletion may solve this Domestic & General problem, but does nothing about the underlying problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a reply to User:SmokeyJoe's comments about "new draft topics by newcomers" and to User:Alpha3031's recommendation of using the trimmed version as an "OK base". I respectfully disagree that the author is entitled to be treated as a newcomer, or that the trimming was a good-faith effort to improve the draft. The "trimming" by unregistered editors included a stripping of the conflict of interest and paid editing templates, which was not done in good faith. The "newcomer" whom SmokeyJoe suggests needs to be given hand-holding in order to become a better editor of related content is not interested in becoming a better editor, only in getting an article about their company. I disagree with any implication that purely promotional editors should be given any sort of mentorship, advice, or encouragement to become better editors. Perhaps I have an entirely different idea of how Wikipedia should work with promotional editors than Alpha3031 and SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation of Comment - SmokeyJoe says that deletion may solve the Domestic & General problem, but does nothing about the underlying problem. What does he mean by the underlying problem? New editors, or promotional editors? My own opinion is that the two problems do not overlap. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- “given hand-holding in order to become a better editor”. No. I do not say this, I do not think this. I expect newcomers to make their own way in mainspace editing.

Agree with the distinguishing of sockpuppet promoters from genuine newcomers. They look the same on casual inspection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pshorney Looked like a typical SPA newcomer sucked into AfC where he gave up. I know genuine newcomers with the same edit history. Genuine newcomers being invited into AfC gives cover to promoting socks in AfC, inept ones anyway.

Newcomers not editing existing content attempting to improve it should not be mentored, they should be watched with suspicion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. If anybody believes that two IP editors just happened to find this draft and decided to work on it, they need their sock-meter fixed. Dishonesty begats deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same Editor, Rotating IP. As per my previous comments from a day or two ago I made on the page, I said I found the page here andwould come back to add references to the page and I did exactly that within 48 hrs. I'm not really invested so do what you want but I don't want there to be any confusion to think the edits were made by two different people. My thinking is any company that is 100+ years old, was previously a publicly listed stock with more customers than most small countries is probably notable. Do what you will but i gave it my 30 mins of time. Everyone seems to agree that regardless of that huge ridiculous page that they tried to publish that the company is notable. Again, I read Smokey's comment above and I gave it my 30 mins to develop a stub but I am certainly not getting involved in whatever seems to be happening here. 2601:989:4300:7EE4:6DAC:9D0C:A2AD:E569 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I frankly couldn't care who has been editing this draft in the past, as I don't find that at all relevant to the content this discussion is about (and I'm actually quite disturbed by the tone of some of the above comments, if they're reflective of how the editors normally deal with new editors it's entirely unsurprising we have a retention problem). What I see is a draft about a notable company that is not ready for mainspace but equally not deserving of deletion - the current version is not exclusively (or even primarily) promotional, and is base an article suitable for the encyclopaedia can be built on. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and before anyone makes any comments about how I came to this discussion, I saw it listed at ANRFC and came here to close it but on reviewing the discussion I found that I actually had an opinion about it that wasn't reflected in the discussion so chose to express that rather than be a non-neutral closer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as is apparent from its creators and the various rotating IPs editing this article, this draft has been created contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING and in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. This fact would be enough for me to personally support deletion, but I can understand that not all editors consider TOU violations to be valid reasons for deletion. Thus, I will also bring up WP:NCORP and will note that the draft in question does not cite an adequate amount of independent, in-depth, significant coverage to ensure the topic passes NCORP criteria. For example, the citing of routine/standard business announcements in the draft does not assuage my doubts, nor does the fact that D&G buyout in 2013 may preclude the company from receiving coverage in the future. The draft also (in my view) does not lodge a credible claim to encyclopedia significance, a requirement for all mainspace articles. I am also keeping in mind this MfD concerns a draft, not a mainspace article, and thus we are judging the draft as it is rather than the topic's potential notability as is the case with AfDs.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have it backwards - articles are required to meet notability criteria now, drafts are simply required to have the potential to be - and this one appears to have that. We are also required to judge the content of the draft currently without being clouded by suspicions about the editor(s) who created it - I believe the proposal to make ToU violations a reason for deletion failed to achieve consensus of the community. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 13 May 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.

April 22, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Limited recognition

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 12:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Limited recognition

This portal is an interesting collection of intros from country pages that all (or nearly all) have their own portal. The only thing that ties them together is their failure to (yet) become universally recognized counties.

The mainspace equivalent head article is actually a redirect Limited_recognition which goes to a list page. Generally we don't build portals based on list class pages, and in this case the diverse circumstances of status really only allows a list article because there is so little in common between the 16 places on the list.

There are just two selected bios but one of them is a poet Kosta Khetagurov that was born and lived in present day North Ossetia which is part of Russia, not South Ossetia the breakaway state which would be within the scope of this page.

The page is maintained but I'd argue that as there is only 16 places on the List of states with limited recognition there is a limited scope here. Legacypac (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate your commentary, but I believe it is misguided; Portal:Limited recognition is not based on one list class article, but based on an entire WikiProject with hundreds of articles in its ever-growing scope (a project which was originally started in 2004 as "WikiProject Unrecognized Countries"). As you mentioned, our portal is maintained, but the others (as you noted that many - but certainly not all - of these subjects have their own portals) are not. In fact, the reason for having one portal that intends to cover all of these countries together - their histories, their geography, their cultures, etcetera - is because this is a much less limited scope than trying to make a portal for each of them; it's hard to get much information from countries that you can't find on the map, but the collective information covering all of them is certainly enough to warrant a project and portal. Note that Ossetia-related subjects (much like Cyprus-related subjects) tend not to be divided; there is only one WP:WikiProject Cyprus and only one WP:WikiProject Ossetia. WikiProject Ossetia is inactive, and it is in the scope of WP:WPLR. WP:WPLR (which maintains Portal:Limited recognition) is de-facto the only project explicitly working on subjects relating to the Ossetian culture at this time. As you can see on the portal page, we have a very lengthy to-do list which includes several planned upgrades to the portal. It's not particularly easy to find new content about the subject on a regular basis; this portal aims to provide a large amount of easily accessible information about these unrecognized states because they're infamously hard to find information about. It has admittedly been a very slow process, and I wish we had a few more volunteer editors in our project to help, but I certainly don't see a case for deletion. As far as the portal guidelines go, the portal seems to meet the desired criteria. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Portals are best used to handle non-controversial topics. Per WP:PWP "Portals may contain uncited/unclear/biased information" its a problem in this case.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I am personally fascinated by the question of how nation-states are born and recognised. It's easy to think of states as permanent fixtures, but in reality they come and go, and some struggle to reach adulthood. So congrats to @BrendonTheWizard and the other good folks at WP:WPLR who are developing Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. I'd prefer if their scope was broader and included wholly unrecognised states such as the 1919–1922 Irish Republic, but that's their call, and I can see definitional problems if the wholly unrecognised are included.

However, I see a number of problems:

Limited Recognition is really just a subset of the wider topic Diplomatic recognition. If there is going to be a portal in this area, I think it would be much better to cover the whole topic.
The lack of any head article apart from the intro to the list forms a poor basis for a portal, because there is nowhere for a reader to go to get a good overview of the topic. The result is an anecdotal portal focusing on examples of an ill-described issue rather than on the issue itself. The current portal doesn't even give prominence to existing articles on key concepts such as Declarative theory of statehood, Constitutive theory of statehood and Jus legationis.
Neither Limited recognition nor Diplomatic recognition are even Level-5 WP:Vital articles. There is no current consensus for any formal requirement to meet any VA level, but I repeatedly see that portals on topics of VA-4 and lower levels suffer even worse sustainability issue than the too-often-neglected Va-3 and higher topics.
The focus on current states with limited recognition skews the portal towards WP:RECENTISM.
The weirdly titled "Current state biographies" section is just the general articles on those states. There isn't even a single standalone article on the limited recognition of country x. That means this isn't really a portal about limited recognition; it's a just collection of states which happen to have limited recognition.

So, I'm sorry, but I don't think there's either anything here worth keeping, or any solid basis for further development. The editors involved would do much better to improve the articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take full blame for the scope of the portal being evidently unclear. The scope can be found here. While I agree that more information regarding the declarative and constitutive theories should be added, I would also like to note that the opening section of the portal does in fact state these theories by name and briefly explains them. More importantly, I would like to stress that - per the scope - this portal's purpose is not to simply explain the recognition itself or serve as a diplomatic relations portal. It serves as a portal for information about the states with limited recognition themselves. This is because our portal page would, ideally, serve as an easily navigable portal to access the information that our project provides, and our project's goal is to lessen the deficit of information regarding said states. I concede that the current title is therefore poor, and "Portal:States with limited recognition" may be more accurate title. The title of "Limited recognition" was chosen because WP:WPLR (formerly WP:URC) has been debating for years how we can make an accurate, scope-encompassing, concise title. "WikiProject Unrecognized Countries" was decided against because it didn't properly fit the scope. It was changed to "Wikipedia:WikiProject geopolitical entities not recognised as states" which obviously fails WP:CONCISE. As one can see on our project page, our scope actually goes slightly beyond current states with limited recognition (as it has for the last fifteen years), so I'm not sure what to do about the title. I maintain that it is preferable to have a single project and portal for these states, as the individual countries' projects and portals are unmaintained, inactive, and abandoned, which only worsens the chronic lack of up-to-date reliable information about said countries on the encyclopedia. Your critiques are well-considered, and #2 in particular is certainly going to be addressed regardless of whether the portal is kept or later recreated and approved (assuming a lack of prejudice against it being redone in the future). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrendonTheWizard:, there is already a well-built navbox {{States with limited recognition}}, which provides much better navigation than the portal. I wish those of you working on this important topic every success, but your energies would be very much better spent on improving the articles than on this portal which gets only 14 pageviews per day, compares with 1,163 per day for the List of states with limited recognition. That sort of viewing level is common for portals; readers just don't want them and don't need need them. The head articles are better navigational hubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the analysis by BrownHairedGirl. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the topic and actively seek to learn more about these almost states. Even visited Kosovo in December. But I'm struggling with the title and scope here. The portal is pulling 450 giews in the last 30 days which is good for a portal, but I'm afraid this is not as good an introduction as the article with links to each entity. Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maintained portal, 32 subpages, created 2018-04-27 18:14:57 by User:BrendonTheWizard. The rationale given for it's scope seems to be: individual portals are in poor shape. This is a true fact, even for the Portal:Palestine. But this is not specific to states with limited recognition. Portals are dying, all of them. Portal:Limited recognition has 14 views per day in the last three months. And helps nothing. Who will key "Portal:limited recognition" when seeking for Taiwan or North Cyprus ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:08, 23 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.

Portal:BBC & Co.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mixed bag of group portals

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 the following: Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, Portal:Slipknot, Portal:Oracle Corporation, Portal:SNK, Portal:Lenovo as uncontested apart from procedural grounds. Please renominate the rest individually. (I'm not going to action this debate for another day or two to hear any possible objections). MER-C 10:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{priorxfd|Portal:Microsoft}}~~

This should be the remaining company portals. I have also included Portal:Motörhead, Portal:Linkin Park, and Portal:Slipknot. Unlike previous nominations, all but two have been maintained in the past (the exceptions are Portal:Lenovo and Portal:Oracle Corporation). The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals.

I will begin notifying the creators of these portals to this nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was notified. I didn't create any of these portals.--Auric talk 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made four edits to Portal:Nintendo last year that did not seem semi-automated, and I had a liberal mindset for who received notifications. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as useless crap that no-one sees. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a lieigimate reason for deletion.Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the results on my previous batches of company portals. Update: I'm fine with any additional company portals added to this nomination as my logic applies to all companies. The topical portals like Portal:Software, Portal:Television etc cover these businesses. Legacypac (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Did the previous batches of company portals consist of all automated portals? Was it a mix of automated and hand-created portals? I ask because people have been opining for deletion simply based upon portals being based upon automation, but some of these in this nomination are not, such as the BBC, Google, Nintendo and Sega portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC. There's good coverage of just the huge number of BBC television programmes, not to mention the rest of the BBC's activities. There was a dedicated Wikiproject, though it is now denoted semi-active. The present portal has 10 selected articles, 9 buildings, 25 DYKs & 12 images (despite the inherent copyright issues), but for some reason only a single bio; there's certainly room for expansion. The apparently broader Portal:Television in the United Kingdom is much newer and less developed, and if the two are merged BBC's history should be preserved. No opinion on the others (I've not examined them). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think lack of maintenance can not be a parameter to discriminate between portals to be deleted or not. In that case, they have to propose portals for updating, not deletion. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with both comments. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all

Use this time machine
and go to the 2008 BBC

- Old portal, 82 subpages, created 2006-10-13 08:32:51 by User:Unisouth. No portal on a single company Portal:BBC

- Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2007-07-08 21:25:49 by User:Arundhati lejeune. No portal on a single company Portal:Motörhead

- Old portal, 34 subpages, created 2008-09-06 16:40:39 by User:Elvenwong50. No portal on a single company Portal:Linkin Park

- Old portal, 14 subpages, created 2008-04-18 07:39:42 by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame. No portal on a single company Portal:Sony

- Old portal, 110 subpages, created 2009-08-11 14:12:23 by User:Wild mine. No portal on a single company Portal:Google

- Old portal, 36 subpages, created 2008-02-01 05:07:57 by User:Blackngold29. No portal on a single company Portal:Slipknot

- Old portal, 25 subpages, created 2012-10-21 20:54:36 by User:Georgethewriter. No portal on a single company Portal:SNK

- Old portal, 31 subpages, created 2006-06-21 21:48:09 by User:Elven6. No portal on a single company Portal:Sega

- Old portal, 61 subpages, created 2006-04-25 02:17:09 by User:Tree Biting Conspiracy. No portal on a single company Portal:Nintendo

Moreover, saying there's certainly room for expansion is nothing but the usual fallacy. The question is not about the possibility of some entity Who Will Come From the Stars and do the job in some unpredictable future. A portal like Portal:BBC is supposed to be a useful navigation tool. Here, be means being right now. And this is blatantly false. User:Espresso Addict tells us I've not examined the other portals. At facial value, this is surely true. But this seems to imply: "I've carefully examined the BBC portal". And this is less likely. In fact, the last editorial edits to the snippets of this portal are either 2008 or 2010 (see below). We even have this marvelous one: Specially built for the BBC and opened in 1960, BBC Television Centre in London is home to much of the BBC's television output. Studio TC1, at 995 square metres, is the second largest television studio in Britain. The corporation has plans to dispose of the building by 2015. We should have plans to dispose of this kind of cadavers before 20015.

date of the last editorial edit of all the 10+11+12 subpages of Portal:BBC

BBC/Selected article/01 2008

BBC/Selected article/02 2008

BBC/Selected article/03 2008

BBC/Selected article/04 2008

BBC/Selected article/05 2008

BBC/Selected article/06 2008

BBC/Selected article/07 2008

BBC/Selected article/08 2008

BBC/Selected article/09 2009

BBC/Selected article/10 2009

BBC/Selected building/01 2010 ... by 2015

BBC/Selected building/02 2011

BBC/Selected building/03 2010

BBC/Selected building/04 2008

BBC/Selected building/05 2008

BBC/Selected building/06 2008

BBC/Selected building/07 2008

BBC/Selected building/08 2010

BBC/Selected building/09 2010

BBC/Selected building/10 2013

BBC/Selected building/11 2011

BBC/Selected picture/01 2008

BBC/Selected picture/02 2010

BBC/Selected picture/03 2008

BBC/Selected picture/04 2010

BBC/Selected picture/05 2008

BBC/Selected picture/06 2008

BBC/Selected picture/07 2008

BBC/Selected picture/08 2010

BBC/Selected picture/09 2008

BBC/Selected picture/10 2010

BBC/Selected picture/11 2014

BBC/Selected picture/12 2010

Pldx1 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I spent at least 16 minutes assessing this portal, probably more (I open all MfD'd portals that aren't clearly just automated in tabs and look at them all before starting to comment); I wish I could spend more time but there are so many suggested for deletion these weeks that there aren't enough waking hours in the day to do a decent job. I noted that I hadn't looked at the others at all for the closing admin because they should not assume that I endorse deletion of the others. I looked briefly at the set of article extracts, the history and the code, and paged through the building images (where this mistake was found) to check none of the images had been deleted but didn't read the captions. If one needs to spend more time than that on individual nominations within a bulk set, then the rate of deletion nomination needs to slow right down to make that at all feasible.

Your (presumably bot-generated) dates are of limited value; there's no obvious reason necessarily to change the caption of, say, a picture added in 2008. Generally it still depicts now what it depicted then, though people die and buildings change in use, and possibly more thought needs to be taken as to how to future proof them. (XXX at yyy date remains true, even if the building burns down or the subject dies.)

I have corrected the specific error that you noted, thanks for drawing it to the community's attention -- but I'm not planning to do any major work on any portal up for deletion, and certainly not in the present climate where it's likely to be deleted even if one were to succeed in bringing it up to a high standard within the time frame. There needs to be a mechanism for advertising under-maintained portals for a period before suggesting deletion, so that maintainers can be sought; akin to the two-stage featured article review process. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: I have no clue as to whether you would be surprised by this statement, but I would agree with you for most of what you said. I have pretty meticulously reviewed these portals before I nominated them. I did not nominate these portals because they were unmaintained. In fact, I stated as much in my nomination: The sole basis for the nomination is the limited scope of these portals. On the portal issue, I consider myself a moderate. I very clearly wanted to maintain Portal:Webcomics, but it was deleted nonetheless. However, the speed to which things are being nominated is not the issue. It is mostly the fact we have no clear guidelines for this matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, MJL. I don't agree that the BBC has limited scope, nor do I think it is similar to the companies with which you have bundled it. I do agree that clear guidelines would be helpful; I feel this mad scramble to delete everything in sight under any available rationale, when no-one knows or agrees (or in some cases cares) where the boundaries lie, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and counter to the RfC last year, which (whatever it did conclude) did not conclude that all portals should be deleted willy-nilly. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to say to that, Espresso. Portal:CERN was deleted with in the first batch of company portals. One of the ones I bundled, Portal:Google, has been almost consistently maintained since its creation in 2009. I put up some of our highest quality portals if you ask me. The way Portal:Nintendo used to look was great. I think that Portal:Microsoft has a breathtakingly stunning design. If there was ever a good group to be with, I would say it was a combination of the ones I nominated.
One estimate I made put the total number of individual portal nominations at 1,588 (faulty number because that includes redirects). The ones that get bundled are both good and bad. It saves the community time from rehashing the same arguments over and over again, but it can come at the expense of a more in-depth view.
When the guidelines are put forward, I suspect many of these bundled ones will be the first to get undeleted per the criteria we come up with. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't CERN automated from a navbox though? The MfD states it was. These are not. If I had more time & energy I'd review more of these; Google in particular might possibly be a sufficiently broad topic because of their AI research. But there's just too many this week, and I don't quite feel strongly enough atm.

I wouldn't hold your breath either for guidelines or for undeletions. I suspect it is more likely that the entirety of portal space (save the main page & portal current events) will go. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added Portal:Microsoft and Portal:Apple Inc.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC) + 17:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1, CoolSkittle, Legacypac, Daniele Pugliesi, and Espresso Addict: Pinging users for comment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those can be deleted too. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On strike. Adding new lines to an already released list is a repeated annoyance. This is the reason why I systematically add the name of the portal to each and every evaluation I made. Nothing else to add. Pldx1 (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on additions. Purely on a procedural note, adding new items to a bundle after the first flush of people have commented is disruptive, even where participants are pinged: most people read MfD from the top, and ignore entries that they have already checked. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1 and Espresso Addict: This has been noted for the future. My apologies to both of you for the disruption. CoolSkittle, I have stricken the relevant additions and withdrawn those nominations. Sorry again, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Broadcasting House 2013.
Obviously too recent

Delete all - Per WP:ADPROMO and WP:NPOV individual Companies portals are a tricky topic, better to deal with companies only in Portal:Companies. Portals of individual companies are also narrow topic like biographies portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced the BBC, whilst technically a corporation under a Royal charter and with its own governing board/trust, as a largely (essentially) tax-funded national broadcasting body that creates/broadcasts free public service television & radio, falls squarely under the definition of "company". I don't know if there are any direct equivalents in other countries? As the oldest broadcaster in the world, and one of the largest, it has a special significance. And I know "I like it" arguments aren't particularly helpful but... as a Brit, it feels borderline offensive to suggest deletion of something related to the BBC when I wouldn't feel at all bothered by such a suggestion relating to a hundred-year-old British company. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portal:BBC – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines per overall content availability, for example, as demonstrated by Category:BBC and subcategories therein. I also disagree with the notion above of deletion per "no portal on a single company", because it's personal opinion, and not based upon portal guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:BBC – Agreed. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Those advocating for deleting all individual company portals in favour of the top-level one might care to assess Portal:Companies, with its sparse & in some cases peculiar selection of articles, dull design and run of missing reference errors at the bottom. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Portal:BBC, like any other portal, should help to browse on a particular subject. But the basic fact is that nobody cares about this portal. The readers don't care: [wmflabs] says 7285 daily views for BBC, 28 daily views for Portal:BBC. The writers don't care: most of the snippets are from 2008, and there is no new editorial content since 2010 (except from the sole and only biography of this portal, who presented Sport on Friday in the 1990s, death 1999, snippet added 2018). Arguing there is overall content availability only underlines the fact that this dead portal is indeed a cadaver instead of complying with the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purpose as stated in §2 of WP:Portal/Guidelines. Once again, delete this not useable navigation tool. Or rename it: "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger". I will not comment about "no portal on a single company" since this disaster is surely not an advertisement for the said company. Pldx1 (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural Close~~ - This train is off the rails. I waited to review this and it is ~~now too much of a wreck to review.~~became an unpleasant statistical task to review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To sum things up, the main contention is whether to (a) delete all or (b) weak delete all but keep Portal:BBC. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now it is a officially a WP:TRAINWRECK. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony as there is more than enough scope for a portal about all of these. Neutral about the rest as I haven't had time to review them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Google – Broad scope, plenty of content available (e.g. see Category:Google), some featured content, overall meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines to qualify for a standalone portal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portal:Nintendo – Broad topic, plenty of content (see Category:Nintendo for examples), plenty of Recognized content (see below). The topic meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines.

Nintendo Recognized content

Featured articles

Former featured articles

Featured lists

Former featured lists

List of Virtual Boy games

Good articles

Former good articles

Good article nominees

Bowsette

Did you know? articles

List of Pokémon (252–319) (2004-04-07)
Torchic (2004-04-07)
F-Zero (2005-04-12)
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. (2006-02-17)
Flash Focus: Vision Training in Minutes a Day (2007-10-27)
Nintendo DSi (2008-10-09)
Super Mario Kart (2009-01-03)
Super Mario Bros. theme (2009-02-20)
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (2009-02-22)
Metroid: Other M (2009-06-06)
Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Minis March Again! (2009-06-09)
Super Mario Galaxy 2 (2009-06-10)
MissingNo. (2009-06-14)
New Super Mario Bros. Wii (2009-06-16)
Jynx (2009-07-19)
Wii Zapper (2009-09-14)
Classic Controller (2009-09-16)
Travis Touchdown (2009-09-29)
Bayonetta (2009-10-31)
Junichi Masuda (2010-06-13)
King Hippo (2010-08-09)
Glass Joe (2010-08-17)
List of Yoshi video games (2011-02-20)
Love Tester (2011-02-25)
Laser Clay Shooting System (2011-04-17)
Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (2011-05-03)
Operation Rainfall (2011-07-05)
Slalom (video game) (2011-08-10)
Off-TV Play (2012-12-18)
Rotozoa (2012-12-26)
The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia (2013-07-10)
Wii Sports Club (2013-10-25)
Max: The Curse of Brotherhood (2014-01-15)
Twitch Plays Pokémon (2014-02-23)
PETA satirical browser games (2014-05-16)
Mischief Makers (2014-06-02)
EarthBound (2014-09-04)
EarthBound fandom (2014-09-04)
Marcus Lindblom (2014-09-04)
Mother 3 fan translation (2014-09-04)
Development of Mother 3 (2014-10-04)
Mother 3 (2014-10-16)
Mother (video game) (2014-11-20)
Mother (video game series) (2015-01-27)
Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels (2015-04-21)
Banjo-Tooie (2015-04-29)
Super Mario Land (2015-04-29)
Yoshi's Island (2015-05-10)
Donkey Kong Country (2015-05-11)
Killer Instinct Gold (2015-09-21)
Kirby's Block Ball (2015-10-07)
Cobra Triangle (2015-10-09)
Pokémon Sun and Moon (2016-03-18)
Pokémon Go (2016-07-18)
Somari (2017-09-23)
Super Mario World (2017-11-13)
1993 congressional hearings on video games (2018-12-19)

Main page featured articles

Super Mario 64 (2005-01-31)
Nintendo Entertainment System (2005-04-01)
Link (The Legend of Zelda) (2005-06-19)
Wario (2005-10-11)
Perfect Dark (2006-05-12)
Bulbasaur (2006-07-28)
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (2006-10-01)
Torchic (2006-12-23)
Wii (2007-04-18)
Super Nintendo Entertainment System (2007-08-02)
Donkey Kong (video game) (2007-10-15)
Super Smash Bros. Melee (2008-05-14)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (2008-11-21)
Alleyway (video game) (2009-04-21)
New Super Mario Bros. (2009-05-16)
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2009-10-13)
Wii Sports (2010-02-04)
Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (2010-05-14)
Golden Sun (2010-11-10)
MissingNo. (2011-09-14)
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (2011-11-26)
Turok: Dinosaur Hunter (2012-04-13)
Metroid Prime (2012-11-17)
The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2013-06-06)
F-Zero GX (2013-07-25)
Mario Power Tennis (2013-12-23)
Nintendo DSi (2014-04-05)
Pokémon Channel (2014-06-30)
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (2014-11-15)
Children of Mana (2015-11-26)
Satoru Iwata (2016-07-11)
Mischief Makers (2016-07-22)
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (2016-08-27)
Killer Instinct Gold (2016-11-25)
Super Mario Galaxy (2017-11-01)
Blast Corps (2017-12-22)
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (2019-01-22)

Main page featured lists

List of Donkey Kong video games (2011-08-15)
List of Nintendo 64 games (2011-11-07)
List of DS:Style products (2017-06-12)
List of Pokémon (2017-10-09)
List of F-Zero media (2018-10-19)

In the News articles

Hiroshi Yamauchi (2013-09-19)
Satoru Iwata (2015-07-12)

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The nominator's decision to chuck in two bands in with a set of companies if very odd, and doesn't reach help a clear decision. There seems to be a strong case for considering the BBC separately to commercial companies. Yes, this is a trainwreck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice to renomination with better bundling. While two have been withdrawn, I think there's still scope for a decent argument based on WP:POG for Google and Nintendo. SITH (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About procedure - The point to discuss here is not "how many Great Articles belong to such or such topic". Nintendo has 224 of them. Small player. BBC has 31+16+157 of them. Small player. Be More Modest and look at Dungeons & Dragons. And don't even argue: this is not the point. What is to discussed is (1) are these portals policy compliant ; (2) are these portals useful as navigation tools (guideline) ? At Dungeons & Dragons, the portal receives 12 views per day. One third of the worse score of any stub article that belongs to this project. Is someone pretending that BBC or Nintendo behaves otherwise ? At [wmflabs] you can check that absolutely no reader cares about these portals (better use the logarithmic scale! ). No writer cares either, as can be seen when looking at how old are the snippets. User TTH was editorially right when nuking all these cadavers, but wrong when replacing them by automated shit generators. And there we are: while intended to provide a navigation tool, these portals don't. Splitting this discussion into individual ones will only result in expanding the duration of the missa pro defunctis, but will not resurrect any of these portals. On the other hand, separating "In Memoriam BBC 2008, When We Were Younger" from "In Memoriam Nintendo, When We Were Younger" could perhaps give some peace of mind to those who require it to let the past slip out of their hands. Pldx1 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: It may be worth noting that, unlike wp:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sims (2nd nomination), I did not revert to the pre-automated state. No one has even bothered to do this for Portal:Nintendo yet. The maintainers didn't even notice the change it seems... :( –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is still a train wreck, but User:Northamerica1000 managed to wreck the train on the MFD main line by inserting the name of WikiProject:Nintendo, punctuated to be magic words. This managed to confuse the numbering of sections on the MFD main line. I had to turn off the magic words. This was a good-faith error, but a real error. Please do not put anything in an MFD that will cause large-scale transclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have since modified my !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC on the basis stated above--it does look like it need re-vitalising, so it should be kept and revialized. Also Keep Google, Sony, and Nintendo on the basis of the same arguemtn as Appple. These are more than miscellaneous random companies. DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:DGG. When you are saying Portal:BBC should be revitalized, are you saying that you will do the job, or are you only saying that someone else should do the job, but not you, who have more important things to do than updating a portal without readers? Pldx1 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot work on everything, so I concentrate on articles and drafts. Even so, at my level of activity, I can fix only a few of the thousands I spot that need fixing. I have never actually worked on a portal, or done anything substantial about categories or other navigational devices. Nor do I work with wikidata, or images. Nor do I try to fix things at CCI or SPA or LTA , though I will sometimes help there if checkuser is needed. None of this means I shouldn't give opinions on what needs to be done. We all rely on each other. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these companies meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC and Google - each of these has a significant number of related articles so a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. I've no comment on the other portals listed; my preference is "Keep" but the scope for some of them might not warrant a portal of their own. Waggers TALK 11:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, User:Waggers should work harder. Using his usual stereotypical sentence Might need some work due to the method of creation, as if Portal:BBC and Portal:Google were automated portals, and as if that was used as a rationale to delete says much. These two portals are old abandoned things from the past, created by the good old methods of this so glorious past of 2008. They were not nuked by TTH and quite nothing has ever changed to these sets of outdated snippets. I have already given shameful samples of expiry. Even 2013 is too recent there. It remains might need some work. This work will never been done, too bad for readers sufficiently naive to open a Wikipedia portal. In any case, there are so few of them. Pldx1 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. There are plenty of articles that haven't been edited in a long time; we don't delete them just because they're "abandoned", especially when editing can bring them up to speed, as it can in these cases. Waggers TALK 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Granted I haven't been following much of what has been happening with Portals but this MfD seems like a trainwreck. I'm not sure why there are three portals that are not companies here since this is supposed to be "the remaining company portals". Last time I checked Slipknot was a band not a company. I'm breaking my votes up based on the portals listed here as I do not feel all should be deleted.
- Strong Keep for BBC, Google, Nintendo, Sega and Sony -- I agree with the keep reasons above for BBC, Google and Nintendo. I also included Sega and Sony with this group as I feel they satisfy WP:POG.
- Neutral for Motörhead, Linkin Park and Slipknot -- These should have been listed in their own MfD with a clear reasoning specific to them as they are not companies.
- Delete for Lenovo, SNK and Oracle Corporation -- These three company portals I feel is more limited in scope than the others I mentioned in my Keep vote and may not meet WP:POG. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Companies: It was not helpful to combine 10 companies with 3 bands. However, this table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. These are old-style manual portals except for Lenovo and Oracle. Lenovo appears to be a single-navbox portal, created by a member of the portal platoon. Pageview metrics are not available for Oracle due to a name change and analyst limitations.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent

BBC	29	6,679	230.3		0.43%
Google	56	21,052	375.9		0.27%
Apple Inc.	40	12,099	302.5		0.33%
Microsoft	73	7,149	97.9		1.02%
Sony	11	3,466	315.1	Originator inactive since 2008.	0.32%
Lenovo	3	2,336	778.7	Single navbox portal, developed Dec 2018.	0.13%
SNK	8	342	42.8	Originator inactive since Oct 2018	2.34%
Oracle				Metrics unavailable.
Sega	12	1,852	154.3	Originator inactive since 2012.	0.65%
Nintendo	42	4,454	106.0	Originator inactive since 2010.	0.94%

None of the companies have more than 100 daily pageviews. None of the companies have more than 3% as many pageviews for the portal as for the article.

Analysis of Music

The following table shows the average daily pageviews between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019 for all music portals that have been considered so far. I am not making any claim that this table lists all bands, or all bands that have portals. If your favorite band isn't shown, either it doesn't have a portal, or its portal hasn't been debated yet (or sneaked past me).

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent

Eminem	13	19,275	1482.7		0.07%
Rihanna	16	14,713	919.6		0.11%
Taylor Swift	9	17,722	1969.1		0.05%
The Clash	7	2,407	343.9		0.29%
Adele	14	7,403	528.8	Second nomination	0.19%
Justin Bieber	18	18,943	1052.4	Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then.	0.10%
Rush	9	3,334	370.4		0.27%
Neil Young	8	5,806	725.8		0.14%
Pink Floyd	13	8,655	665.8		0.15%
The Rolling Stones	9	7,314	812.7		0.12%
Led Zeppelin	14	8,103	578.8		0.17%
Michael Jackson	24	28,527	1188.6		0.08%
Jackson Family	85	3,956	46.5		2.15%
Janet Jackson	7	5,926	846.6		0.12%
Shania Twain	12	4,927	410.6	Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan.	0.24%
Frank Zappa	8	4,201	525.1		0.19%
Aerosmith	10	3,224	322.4		0.31%
Avril Lavigne	9	10,197	1133.0	Peak on 15 Feb in article access.	0.09%
Queen (band)	50	59,785	1195.7	Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb.	0.08%
Bob Dylan	15	9,373	624.9		0.16%
The Supremes	7	2,437	348.1		0.29%
The Beatles	15	14,088	939.2		0.11%
U2	9	3,993	443.7		0.23%
Grateful Dead	23	2,898	126.0		0.79%
Iron Maiden	11	3,877	352.5		0.28%
The Kinks	8	1,987	248.4		0.40%
Elvis Presley	12	24,375	2031.3		0.05%
Miles Davis	7	3,603	514.7		0.19%
Whitney Houston	7	12,726	1818.0		0.06%
AC/DC	10	7,542	754.2		0.13%
Motörhead	8	2,182	272.8		0.37%
Linkin Park	8	5,300	662.5	Originator made 4 edits in 2008 including setting up portal.	0.15%
Slipknot	8	4,324	540.5	Originator inactive since 2016	0.19%

The three bands that are listed last in the table are included in this nomination. They each have only 8 daily pageviews.

Delete the three band portals, Portal: Motörhead , Portal: Linkin Park , Portal: Slipknot , each of which have too few views (8 daily) to justify a portal.
Delete Portal:Lenovo, Portal:SNK, Portal:Sega, Portal:Sony, none of which have 20 daily pageviews.
Question – Do Portal:Microsoft, Portal:Apple, Portal:BBC, Portal:Google, Portal:Oracle Corporation have maintainers?

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [[[Portal:BBC]], which is not being maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all including Google, Microsoft, and Apple. It is a bad idea to have portals for individual companies, as these portals rather look like advertisement boards. Except probably BBC since that is not precisely a privately held company. SD0001 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:BBC. That the portal can say "The MediaCityUK development ... will become the home of the BBC in Manchester from 2011" indicates that the portal is not being maintained adequately - we shouldn't be luring readers to such pages and thus we shouldn't waste editor time on them. DexDor^(talk) 16:38, 28 June 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.

April 20, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kilkenny

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: Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Kilkenny

Small Irish county under 100,000 population. We have repeatedly decided that counties are not suitably broad topics and that towns with such a small population are also too narrow a scope. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now (to my surprise). At first sight, good catch: far too narrow a topic, clearly fails the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

I was not surprised to see that this portal was created by Mrchris (talk · contribs). That editor does great work documenting the lovely County Kilkenny and the historic city of Kilkenny, but has a vastly inflated view of the significance of Kilkenny cats and their county. This notably led him to create WP:WikiProject Kilkenny with himself as lone participant. That was userfied to User:Mrchris/WikiProject Kilkenny per an MFD in April 2011, but I see that the banner project of this still-born project Template:WikiProject Kilkenny, wasn't deleted, so it continues to be used on 84 pages. I'll MFD it shortly.

As usual for portals, this has an abysmally low viewing figure of only 5 per day in Jan-Feb 2019.

However, the portal itself is quite well built, again typical of MrChris's work. It has multiple selected article lists under different headings, and its layout all works. It's actually of significantly higher quality than many portals rated as much much higher priorities than this Level-5 vital article (County Kilkenny is VA level-5, i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics.) I am disappointed that the nominator either didn't notice or chose not to mention the quality. If we ranked portals like articles, this one would probably be at least GA-class.

So while my initial reaction to the narrow scope was to delete, I can't actually bring myself to delete a well-made and actively well-maintained portal. If it was yet more driveby automated portalspam, I'd delete it in a second, but this is far from that. It's actually a bit of a poster child for the core principle of WP:PORTAL, viz that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".

Pending a broader community consensus on which portals to keep, it seems like folly to delete a genuinely good portal as part of the current dejunking process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As BrownHairedGirl notes, this is a well-crafted portal on a small topic, but not vanishingly so (100k population and a long history). There are 5 selected articles, 8 history, 9 landmarks, 41 geography articles and some nifty manipulation of the auto-method that I'm keen to see how it works. The head article is B class and lacks orange-level tags. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Espresso Addict. This is indeed well-crafted.

Before I saw this nomination, I had recently reviewed Portal:Europe, which is a level-2 vital topic. When I saw Portal:Kilkenny, I was struck by how it handles its topic so much better than the Europe portal. Kilkenny has more sets of selected articles, and each of them showing multiple articles at the same time. If the Europe portal has a maintainer, they should come to Kilkenny and learn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: There was a widely used model of portal building that just had Selected article, Selected biography & Selected image, with the idea that it was good to have as wide selection as possible in one box. I have always preferred this model, which I've used in Portal:Viruses. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Old portal, 15 subpages, created 2010-10-08 10:27:55 by User:Mrchris. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Kilkenny. Pldx1 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pldx1, a comment from @Mrchris would indeed be welcome, tho they seem to have been on a WikiBreak since the end of March. But in this case, I don't think it is needed, because we can see that the portal is clearly maintained in very good shape. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zombify by which I mean don't delete for the moment (at least whilst portals are in a state of flux and this might be useful as an example of a good portal). However, we should strongly discourage creation of further portals for individual counties (and other topics of similar scope) as the effort that abandoned half-completed portals use (for the creating editor and editors doing various cleanup tasks) could be better spent elsewhere. DexDor^(talk) 11:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly agree that we don't want more portals on such narrow topics. And I would probably support a future purge which removed all portals on such narrow topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:
- - Out of general respect for the wishes of User:BrownHairedGirl, who has so seldom requested a Keep that I will heed her view.
  - As one Celt for another.
  - Without prejudice to a possible nomination for deletion in 60 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the idea that purging narrow geographic topics is new is off. Some of my earliest portal MFD nominations were small population centers. I'm surprised to see a keep vote on a Irish county and a MFD on Portal:Ireland. Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the discussions, the difference is that Portal:Ireland is unmaintained and outdated, where as this portal is well-maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WP:POG guideline says nothing about well maintained. What it does say is "broad subject area." This is NOT a sufficiently broad subject area. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. County level topics usually have plenty of scope for a portal and as others have pointed out this is a particularly historical county. Category:County Kilkenny and its immediate subcategories contain 256 articles, and many of those subcategories have further categories containing further articles within them - that's certainly broad enough scope for a portal. WaggersTALK 14:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Statements like that are easy to make, but closer evaluation often reveals a very different picture.

I did the same exercise of using AWB to scan Category:County Kilkenny + its first-level subcats.

Then I scanned to remove pages either tagged as stub or assessed as stub. That left 122 articles.

I then scanned the 122 articles to keep only those specifically assessed as FA, GA, A, B, C or list-class, leaving only 30 pages.

Some of those are biographies, which may be of people who had limited connection with the county, so I excluded the biogs.

That left 14 articles, of which 8 are lists.

Sure, some of the lists may be appropriate for the portals, and so many some of the biogs. But the reality is that only about 10% of the initial total are potentially suitable for the portal.

And yes, there are more pages in subcats. But there are a lot of stubs in there. The idea that Irish counties are broad scope topics is sadly misplaced; most of them are very thinly covered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 7 May 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.

April 19, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Korea

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. This was a long and winding discussion over a very long period of time (why wasn't this closed earlier?). There was no clear numeric consensus in the votes. However, it seemed to me that there are a few arguments for deletion that weren't adequately refuted. Most convincing was the argument that portals should not be redundant to other portals per WP:POG, and it seems that this portal is necessarily redundant to the portals for North Korea and South Korea. Additionally, this portal was clearly not maintained at all for years at a time, which is obviously problematic (but may not always be a sufficient reason to delete a portal, in the absence of other reasons). ‑Scottywong | talk _ 07:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Korea

Sandwiched between Portal:Asia and Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea this portal lacks scope real estate to occupy. It's kind of like the DMZ. I propose this be deleted and then recreated as a two page DAB to the two country portals. If the Koreas ever get back together we can revisit this. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mees WP:POG per topical scope (a broad topic, e.g. see categories below) and per high quality content available on Wikipedia about the topic (e.g., Featured and Good articles, etc., see High quality content below). Another idea is to Merge content from this portal to the South Korea and North portals, respectively. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion continues here

Convert to disambiguation per nomination; this portal is contrary to WP:POG, which says portals should not be redundant to another Portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kill this shit: all Koreas, past and present, deserve better. Page views are low [wmflabs], this is the only good thing here.

The Portal:South Korea is a shameful copy of the empty set: TWO pictures, TWO articles, THREE bibliographies, all from 2015. Ban Ki-moon + a film director + a speed skater, this is South Korea, as seen from this portal.

The Portal:North Korea displays the following 12 snippets:

The Korean War
The Chaplain–Medic massacre, 1950, Tunam, South Korea
The Hill 303 massacre, 1950, near Taegu, South Korea
The Battle of Nam River, 1950, part of the Battle of Pusan Perimeter
The Battle of Osan, 1950, south of the South Korean capital Seoul
The Battle of Taejon, 1950, (Taejon is 50 minutes south of Seoul by KTX)
The 766th Independent Infantry Regiment, NKPA, disbanded 1950
The Art of the Cinema, 1973, written by Kim Jong-il.
The 6th Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK), 1980
The 2009 North Korean nuclear test
The Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang), 2011, scheduled to open partially in 2013
'The Interview', a 2014 American political satire targeting Kim Jong-un

Korean war occurred 1950-1953. All of the Korean War battles had taken place south of the DMZ: don't this seems strange ? The infamous scheduled to open partially in 2013. shows how obsolete are those snippets. Aren't there any noteworthy topics/events that occurred post 2009 ?

The same goes for the six biographies:

Kim Il-sung (1912 – 1994)
Kim Jong-il (1941 – 2011)
Kim Jong-un (born 1983)
Jo Ki-chon (1913 – 1951) was a Russian-born North Korean poet.
Han Sorya (1900 – 1970) head of the Korean Writers' Union, purged 1962
Kim Pyong-il (born 1954), surviving son of Kim Il-sung,

Aren't there any other people ? For example, Kim Jong-nam (1971 – 2017) is missing. Too recent maybe ?

The Portal:Korea displays the following 11 snippets:

The Korean War
The Battle of Osan, 1950
The Battle of Taejon, 1950
The 766th Independent Infantry Regiment
The Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang), 2011, scheduled to open partially in 2013
The 2009 North Korean nuclear test
'Inchon', war film about the 1950 Battle of Inchon, 1981
Rhee Taekwon-Do is a martial art school in Australia and New Zealand who has no relation to the World Taekwondo Federation (WTF).
Asia League Ice Hockey, headquartered in Japan.
Typhoon Shanshan, which mainly affected Japan, 2006
Iris South Korean espionage television drama series, 2009
Gyeongju city

Remarks, anyone ?

Then, we have the following biographical snippets:

Choe Bu (1454–1504)
Kim Ki-young (1922 – 1998), SK film director
Seung Sahn (1927—2004), Korean Jogye Seon.
Seung-Hui Cho (1984–2007), the mass killer at Virginia Tech massacre (listed 2012-2016)
Ban Ki-moon (born June 13, 1944)
Tessa Ludwick (born 1988), Korean American actress from Apollo Beach, Florida.
Mo Tae-bum (born 15 February 1989), SK speed skater.

Surely the 7 most representative people of Korea among the last 40 centuries !

The shameful state of all of these three portals reflects a simple thing: nobody cares. WP:WikiProject Korea is as mythical as the haetae of the old, while the histories of the various subpages confirm the obsolescence. The guidelines are saying: the portal must be maintained and serve a useful purpose at WP:POG#In_general and Some portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferred at WP:POG#How_often_to_update?. This is not the case here. The already existing navboxes are providing navigation tools of a largely better quality.

As a conclusion: delete all this shit. All Koreas, and our readers as well, deserve better. Pldx1 (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: I maintain Portal:North Korea (and sometimes poke around with the other two Korea portals as well). Let me explain some of the design choices of the former. Why are most of the "Selected articles" about the Korean War? Because most of the Featured or good articles on North Korea are about the conflict (undoubtedly because of the highly active Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and the general tendency to gravitate efforts toward US-centric topics). Regardless of where the battles took place, North Korea was always a combatant, of course. Unlike the recent "fully automated" portals, this one was never automated and it follows the prior de facto convention: "Selected articles" are not random articles from a category or navbox. They are actual handpicked quality content. That's because WP:PORTALs are to topics what the Main Page is to the whole project, and you don't see random crap linked from the Main Page, either. There aren't any FA class biographies so these are the three leaders + anything GA (Kim Pyong-il was there already). The article on Kim Jong-nam for instance is a lowly C, and, let me re-iterate: "Selected articles" are supposed to be quality content, not necessarily recent. There is an "In the news section" for that, and it's as up-to-date as the corresponding Wikinews page (that is to say, not very). I've updated the Ryugyong Hotel entry; like I said, this portal is not automated, so this is the obvious downside. In addition, I've added a few new GAs.

There is a lot of triggerhappiness in both camps with the current situation on portals. My approach has mostly been to watch and learn. While there are obvious shortcomings with the old manual portals, the new fully automated ones have usually been even bigger disasters. I'm waiting for some sort of compromise to happen (perhaps in vain) rather than ruining portals and wasting time by taking extreme measures either way. Once we've settled on the method of building and maintaining portals, it's will be a more fruitful task. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has anyone noticed that the portal says that Ban Ki-moon is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations? That is an old version of a page. Something is wrong here, illustrating both lack of maintenance and something technically wrong that shows frozen snapshots of pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Without prejudice to nominations for the two nation-states or any other portal, but that snapshot of a past page is weird enough to warrant a silver bullet. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. Dear User:Northamerica1000. Surely, I should have opened a MfD for the Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea. Do you think it would be fair to add them here now, or that another procedure should be opened ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The way Korea topics are organized is that there is only one WikiProject, WikiProject Korea and taskgroups for both countries. This is super convenient because literally everything before 1945, for millennia, is shared history that we don't want to duplicate in two projects. The same goes for many, many aspects of contemporary Korean culture that is shared. Portal:Korea is a great catch-all for such content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When saying: The way Korea topics are organized is that there is only one WikiProject there is a right part: only one (shared history, etc.). Everything else is misleading. Top and foremost this is, which tends to suggest that the WikiProject Korea is alive, while organized tries to mask the cruel reality: only living bodies are organized for real. Using the so called Great Articles as basis is one of the reasons of the resulting disaster.

44 about Korean War

14 about mostly foreign topics

21 about K-pop and dramas

09 about North Korera

13 about South Korea

02 about (marginal) pre-1900 people.

Navigation tools pretending to be portals about Korea and that have no links to Seoul or Busan nor Pyongyang or Kaesong nor to any notable people of the pre-1900 period are to be thrown out, with bathwater and shame. Pldx1 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment - Dear all User:Pldx1, User:Northamerica1000, User:Finnusertop, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Legacypac, User:Robert McClenon. I have nominated today Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea for deletion. Since the three deletions are related, it would make sense to relist this one so that all three nominations are listed in sequence and perhaps closed one by one but in sequence and by the same admin. Being largely involved, I hesitate to proceed by myself. What do you think about such a relisting ? Cheers. Pldx1 (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My own answer is No. Let this discussion be closed unless a decision is made to relist it. The closer can look at the Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea portal discussions without the need to keep this one open. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with closing The discussions are separate; the two Koreas are countries, Korea is not. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
15 days later - Supposed to be a navigation tool, this portal continues to have no article about Seoul, Busan, Pyongyang, Kaesong, nor any of the people selected for South Korean notes, while the Ryugyong Hotel is scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013 as ever (see Portal:Korea/Selected article/9), and Ban Ki-moon is the current Secretary-General of the United Nations as he ever was (see Portal:Korea/Selected biography/1). Even during this deletion process, the keep !voters cannot be arsed to cure their pet portal from signaled failures. Therefore, the only long-term and reasonable cure is to delete this mess. Without prejudice to a restart from scratch, by people decided to provide a decent portal and to spend the required time. Pldx1 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit premature to make requests for improvements while it is nominated for deletion. Common sense really. It would be counterproductive to spend time improving a portal that may subsequently be deleted, watching one's work vanish. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: my experience at AfD is that there is nothing like a nomination to bring forth a burst of improvement activity: rewrites, sourcing, adding images, the works. To me, it's more likely here that any prospective improvers recognize the redundancy with the 2 country portals will be fatal to this one, as it should be. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is this thing? Better ask WP:Reference_desk than Portal:Korea

Don't talk so loud about Ban Ki-moon. There was no requests for improvement. Because I haven't any hope for any improvement. It was only the simple observation that, during this MfD, the keep !voters were not even trying to give the impression they have any intent to do any maintenance to this disaster. Why would they work harder if this disaster was kept ? This is only another case of the well-known pattern: without any crowd, don't hope for any crowd-sourcing to occur. Pldx1 (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more week later - What were you expecting ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more week later - What were you expecting ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep North and South Korea have only existed since 1948, before that the countries weren't divided, so any aspect of their history, culture etc which is from before 1948 will not come under North or South Korea. There's plenty of scope there. It isn't an automated portal and the content looks reasonable. Hut 8.5 06:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear User:Hut 8.5. You are saying: the content looks reasonable. Have you checked Portal:Korea/Selected article/9 that, even now, asserts: the Ryugyong Hotel is scheduled to open partially in July or August 2013 ? Have you checked all this shameful set of expired snippets? The WP:WikiProject Korea is as dead as any other deceased WikiProject, and nobody has any intent to maintain the corresponding deceased portal. By the way, Choe Bu (1454–1504), is the only biography here related to the before 1948 area. Doesn't this seem strange? A portal is supposed to be a navigation tool, i.e. is supposed to be designed according to "there is plenty of scope here", and not only pay a lip service to there is plenty of scope there. Stop mocking the readers with this fake portal ! Pldx1 (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I updated Portal:Korea/Selected article/9 to reflect the current state of the Ryugyong Hotel. This is typically the thing to do, rather than leaving outdated information in place as a pointer to qualify deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm not "mocking" anything and I've been happy to get rid of plenty of rubbish portals in the last few months, including nominating many for deletion myself. There are two basic questions here: is the topic of Korea a viable one for a portal, and is the current portal content good enough to avoid WP:TNT? The answer to the first question is pretty clearly Yes, Korea has been home to advanced civilisations for thousands of years and has produced easily enough material for a portal. There are plenty of other pre-1948 articles which could be listed, just looking through the GAs and FAs I can see Hanpu and Juldarigi. And that's assuming that all post-1948 content is out of scope, which I don't necessarily agree with. That one selected article was out of date means nothing, and you could just as easily have fixed it (as someone else has) instead of complaining about it here. Hut 8.5 20:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The snippets here are so outdated (fixing one doesn't fix the others) because nobody has any intent to maintain this so-called portal. Pretending that Hanpu + Juldarigi, when added to Tessa Ludwick + Choe Bu will provide a navigation tool inside the 40 centuries of Korean civilization and history is quite ridiculous. Here, the key problem is the pretense to describe Korea with the stock of the so-called Great Articles... when everybody knows how decentered they are from the core of the topic! Nothing about Seoul or Pyongyang! Nampo, Busan, Kaesong, unknwon cities ! Nothing about poets, painters, generals, rulers, temples, forteresses, cuisine, rivers or mountains. Nothing about anything. Are you that proud of this non-portal? In any case, readers already know, as can be inferred from the page views. Pldx1 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, regarding page views, the portal has received 2,600 views between 4/20/2019 and 5/20/2019. This is actually rather substantial, and one should keep in mind that main pages almost always receive more page views compared to portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Northamerica1000. I suppose that you already know that you are joking. (1) Saying that $2600/30\approx 87$ views par day is rather substantial for a portal appears as a sneaky comment against the whole Portal space. (2) This marvelous score is only the result of the present MfD, see [wmflabs]. Pldx1 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge the other 2 Korea Portals into this one – This topic is sufficiently broad, and more than notable enough to warrant having its own portal. Since the differences between North and South Korea (which were a single country before World War II) are only political, and since Wikipedia has a single WikiProject covering all activities related to Korea, I think that we should merge all 3 portals together and put everything in one place. The new portal can definitely be updated/maintained with greater ease afterward. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with this. Note that Pldx1 nominated the North Korea portal for deletion complaining in part that it covered pre-partition topics and topics which affected both parts (such as the Korean War), a merge would address that complaint. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a rationale such as "Kill this shit: all Koreas, past and present, deserve better." it is clear that the nominator is acting in bad faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Korea and Countries

The following spreadsheet shows the average daily pageviews for selected past and present countries, for the period of 1 January 2019 through 28 February 2019. Each of the entries either is a country or has been a country. This is not a complete list of countries. If your country isn't listed, then its portal hasn't been nominated, and I haven't provided it for comparison.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent

Germany	104	15,549	149.5		0.67%
Kosovo	10	6,104	610.4		0.16%
Nigeria	53	8,707	164.3		0.61%
Azerbaijan	14	5,839	417.1		0.24%
Korea	35	3,135	89.6	Article views include Korean Peninsula.	1.12%
North Korea	51	6,870	134.7		0.74%
South Korea	23	7,824	340.2		0.29%
United States	235	42,004	178.7		0.56%
Ireland	38	8,813	231.9	Does not include 5867 views of Republic of Ireland.	0.43%
Seljuk Empire	2	1,366	683.0	Article views are for two related articles.	0.15%
Umayyad Caliphate	2	1,983	991.5		0.10%
Austria-Hungary	10	3,724	372.4	Already deleted.	0.27%
Mughal Empire	9	5,814	646.0		0.15%
Canada	64	18,158	283.7		0.35%
United Kingdom	133	31,041	233.4	Originator inactive since 2009.	0.43%
Australia	77	17,864	232.0		0.43%

As can be seen, no country portal ever is viewed as often as 1.5% of the frequency of viewing the article. It is commonly stated by portal advocates and others that a country is a "broad subject area" and warrants a portal. Philosophers make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, between knowledge that is available in advance and knowledge that must be based on observation. It is possible to decide a priori that particular types of subject areas, such as countries, are broad subject areas. However, that is an incomplete quotation of the portal guidelines, and, because of its incompleteness, is misleading. The portal guidelines say that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." It is not possible to decide a priori that a subject area will attract readers and portal maintainers. That must be observed, and assessed a posteriori. What has been seen a posteriori is that a portal often does not get even 0.3% as many views as the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most portals don't get very many views, but that's an argument against portals in general, not this portal. If you want to get rid of portals in general then you should open a discussion about getting rid of portals in general, not try to get rid of them one by one by arguing that portals aren't very useful. Since a recent discussion about getting rid of portals in general decided not to we're pretty much stuck with them for now. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion of Korea

add your keep/delete/comments below this line

Keep Korea is a wide subject and it's methodological nationalism to delete this in favour of two seperate portals. Gumlau (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has already been decided to Keep the two portals on the two nations of modern Korea, the combined portal should be deleted, or disambiguated as recommended by User:Legacypac. An even better idea would be that of User:LightandDark2000 to merge Portal:South Korea and Portal:North Korea into Portal:Korea. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who would merge (etc.) ? Anyone knows what would be required to have a portal, i.e. an efficient navigation tool into Korean topics. This requirement is a staff of volunteers decided to do the required work by themselves. But there is no such a staff. We only have Keep and pray for better days, that can be translated into Keep and let it rot more and more. While waiting for a maintainer Who Would Come From The Stars, it would simply be more honest to stop luring the readers: this abandoned wreck doesn't navigate. Pldx1 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate and Delete subpages. Per Robert McClenon's sound analysis above. Merging is a labor intensive effort that would be wasted here if you ask me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A merge makes the most sense to me. The two Koreas have a shared history prior to 1948 so a single portal eliminates any overlap, and if maintenance is an issue then surely it would require more work to maintain two portals. IIRC, this portal predates the other two anyway. PC78 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation. I don't want to see pointless spamming of Portal:North Korea and Portal:South Korea to pre-division history articles. Also oppose merge per the above (no one has volunteered to actually do the work) and the fact that we just literally kept the two because their scope and condition was considered okay. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of any potential there might be to create a portal on this topic, the reality is that this one is abandoned. Its 12 selected articles and 7 selected biogs are content forks which have barely changed since their creation in 2012. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Korea and its navbox Template:Korea topics. Our readers are ill-served by this mini-farm of outdated content forks.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Korea is a country with a long history, so a theoretical argument could be made that it is a broad topic ... but we don't need to rely on theory because we have empirical evidence that in practice this portal does not pass that test: it has not attracted maintainers, and it has not attracted readers. In Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got only 35 pageviews per day, compared with 2,741 daily views for the head article [[Korea]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 27 June 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dungeons & Dragons

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: Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dungeons & Dragons

Like Portal:Warhammer this is redundant to Portal:Role-playing games which already features D&D as a selected article. Insufficent scope for a portal. 418 page views on the portal vs 94,000 on the head article shows readers prefer the mainspace article which is a much better introduction to the topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well thought out and connected area to all (or even most) of the interconnected pages I would consider related. Was an auto-follow as soon as I saw it. The news and tasks sections could use an update, its true, but it's still led me to so much more content than I thought would exist. Portal Roleplaying games is a broader focus that loses the detail and community of this one. Vecna would belong here, but not as arguably in RPGs. Secondarily, your metrics are NOT comparing apples to apples as the two don't have equal exposure to the general usership, nor do you have a control group to compare against. Thirdly, if you think it should be merged ("redundant"), isn't there a better way to do that? Elfabet (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Revert to this pre-automated version – In my view, the overall topic satisfies WP:POG, and cramming everything into Portal:Role-playing games isn't necessary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help guide my future nomination decisions, it would be helpful to understand your view on the boundary between what is and what isn't a "broad subject" in WP:POG, if you view there is one. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Per my comment on this nomination, I would have liked this be discussed with Portal:Magic: The Gathering since their scopes are similar. As the other MfD has not ended, I cannot form an opinion as of this time. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another fairly broad topic, and as I have said repeatedly elsewhere, page views are not a rationale for deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep D&D is of stand alone importance. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 42 subpages, created 2009-01-16 13:56:53 by User:Drilnoth. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Dungeons & Dragons. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1: Is this a script you are running? I noticed that you have not commented on all MfD portal nominations with it. How does it work? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:MJL. Like anyone else, even you, I am using a computer to take my part in the MfD process. Be assured that I am taking all the required measures in order that my keyboard doesn't dare to do anything without my order, authorization, commit and ex post facto control. How can I prove you that it's me, a human person, that is issuing this answer and not some Martian electrons, hidden in the wires ? By the way another fairly broad topic seems to be a joke (seems to me, I haven't asked my keyboard for it's opinion). Pldx1 (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1 and Robert McClenon: Sorry if there was a misunderstanding, but I was aware of the fact that Pldx1 was using only a semi-automated process and tailoring each response to each nomination. My question was not suppose to be accusatory or to diminish in any way. I was more so curious about the methods with which they are using to employ this process. I actually would like to see it employed more because it generally provides interesting info/insight to the nominations that I have been lurking, yet not all have it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the chance that someone knows enough about portals to look to see if there is a portal about Dungeons & Dragons it seems much more likely that they would search for Dungeons & Dragons rather than role-playing games. Given the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons at the role-playing games portal would it makes sense to convert this title to a redirect?--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see that User:Pldx1 is behind the computer assistance, because they sometimes ask for a maintainer and sometimes don't. A human is using the script, if it is a script. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - First, page views are, in my view, a rationale for deletion. Second, not really a broad subject area, just a subject area of broad interest. Third, an argument as to why a portal is better than a navbox or embedded links would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe DnD is a sufficiently notable and robust topic to support a portal. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 15:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The DnD set encompasses FIVE HUNDRED ARTICLES. Look at the Community tech bot's stats listed at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Popular pages. And guess what ? the page views of Portal:D&D are [wmfabs] 12 per day, when the shittiest stub of the 500 articles is far ahead with 38 views per day. Instead of being a navigation tool for jumping from Dungeon to Dungeon, this shameful portal only weakens the views per page per day of the whole set. Let us dispose of the weakest link ! Let it be eaten by the Dragons ! Pldx1 (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm unconvinced on the argument to merge to the "higher" RPG portal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single RPG franchise does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:18, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:EastEnders

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: No consensus to delete, default to keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:EastEnders

260 pageviews vs 71,400+ pageviews in 30 days shows how little value readers find in this portal compared to the head article which is actually a better portal for this topic - a single TV show. Portal has existed since 2006 and is maintained so it has had plenty of time to build readership. Time to cancel the article spinoff the audience rejected. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page views are not a rationale for deletion. This is an extremely popular and long-running show in the UK, which has won many awards. There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed. This portal acts as a good introduction to the topic and to its coverage on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Popularity of a TV show is not a rationale for a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2006-09-22 20:41:50 by User:AnemoneProjectors. There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage is yet another series of weasel words. This portal only directs to FOUR characters and THREE episodes, while pretending being some useful navigation tool. Stop joking. Portal:EastEnders. Pldx1 (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Legacypac has a useful point, which is that the portal has not built an audience in thirteen years, and probably never will. Of course, the page view metrics about other portals do not give much support to portals in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the creator and maintainer of this portal. I don't feel I can !vote in this as I'm involved and but I've occasionally questioned the usefulness of this portal and was frustrated by how out-of-date it had become, so I tried to get a few people on board to help update it and although they agreed, nothing was done. Then last year I gave it a revamp, copying what I had seen on another portal. This meant it would not get so out-of-date and would need less updating. The portal is not well promoted, only being linked in articles via Template:EastEnders, and also in category pages, so if page views are a problem this could be something to do with it, as could the fact that it was out-of-date for so long and does not have regular updates. It could be down to the fact that I have a lot less time available for Wikipedia now than I used to and EastEnders articles are severely lacking in dedicated editors. However, I will accept the result of this MFD either way. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 15:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. You are welcome. Pldx1 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I'm welcome to vote? I know that but actually, I'll leave it to others because I don't have an argument for or against, so I'll just leave you with my statement above. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't vote for its retention then all your efforts will be deleted. Rillington (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 12:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending a wider consensus on which portals should be kept. The nominator's description of the portal is accurate as far as it goes, but doesn't identify the key issue with this portal, which is @Pldx1's point that it has a tiny range of subtopics.

In this case, the extra info enhances the case for deletion, but it also enhances the pattern of the nominator making rushed nominations which don't properly examine the portal. How long does it take view the source code and to type Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:EastEnders?

This portal is not actually broken. Despite its limited scope, the lack of actual brokenness puts it way ahead of most old-style portals. And the limited pageviews are a problem common to nearly all portals.

The last month of cleanup MFDs has been an important process of getting rid of the recent influx of junk, and some old perma-broken portals. But with that process nearing completion, Legacypac appears to be moving onto MFDing much older, non-broken portals which really fall into the scope of issues which should be decided at RFC. I am also increasingly concerned that despite picking off these portals one at a time, Legacypac's nominations are too often inaccurate and remain uncorrected even when specific inaccuracies are identified, and in most cases they give a grossly inadequate account of the portal. Time for a halt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost troll. My nomination is fine. Legacypac (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doubt is coming to me~~ - When someone says There is plenty of Wikipedia coverage, this is easily parsed as "there is a basis for someone else to do the job", not so convincing. When someone says "I will maintain", the AGF mantra pushes to "OK, let us try" (I am not convinced in advance, but this is another story). Pldx1 (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC) no more doubt now, confirm delete Pldx1 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A portal on a single television show, no matter how popular that show, does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I said I wouldn't !vote on this, I agree with those who said low page views are a common problem for all portals and I believe there should be a wider consensus on portals in general, like User:BrownHairedGirl suggested. — 🌼📽️Anemone Projectors💬 12:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page views are not a deletion rationale. There are a significant number of related articles so this is a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Waggers TALK 11:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The question is not good or bad candidacy, but good or bad navigation tool, since this is the alleged usefulness of a portal. Having only FOUR characters and THREE episodes, after 13 years of existence, and 15 days after this remark has been done, at the beginning of this MfD, is a deletion rationale. While "there are a significant number of keep !voters who will do the job" would be a keep rationale. But there are... none. Pldx1 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article has 3113 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019, but the portal has 8 daily pageviews, which is less than the average portal at 13 daily pageviews. Pageviews are so a deletion rationale, because the portal guidelines say that portals should be broad subject areas that attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Even if this portal is maintained, it is not being viewed much. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it time for a close, or for a Relist? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 26 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock music

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: Keep, but have a merge discussion Portal:Rock music and Portal:Rock and Roll should be merged, but (1) a final target needs to be decided and (2) someone needs to actually DO it. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rock music

This old portal is essentially duplicate scope to Portal:Rock and Roll also created long ago. Delete and create a redirect to Portal:Rock and Roll. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Need a rationale for why Portal:Rock and Roll is superior. If the two are just essentially to be merged there's no need to delete either first. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the newer one for deletion. I have no preference for the presentation of either one. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rock and Roll seems to have been a static selection before Transhumanist overwrote it, unless it used code I'm not familiar with, whereas Portal:Rock music had rotating content. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to also nominating the other one. Noting that this portal was created by a banned sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 121 subpages, created 2008-06-24 08:32:51 by User:Linkins Parkl~enwiki. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Rock music. Pldx1 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I would support an actual merge to either title, but randomly choosing one of a pair is not a valid reason to delete rather than do a considered merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - (and the other more than this one). Thus: procedural close, followed by a bundled MfD. Pldx1 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A broad concept topic that passes Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. Also expandable, with a decent amount of content already at Portal:Rock music/Selected articles and Portal:Rock music/Selected pictures. Also, this portal has rotating content, whereas Portal:Rock and Roll does not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Mfd created the best days of this portal. Jumping from 20 views per day to 90 [wmflabs], whaow ! Perhaps, we should let this MfD run for ever, it would be a so rock and roll way to prove how expandable the portal was. Pldx1 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to a merge with Portal:Rock and Roll in either direction (I don't have a preference) per BHG and others. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 13 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Carry On

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 09:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Carry On

Film series with about 37 pages in it's scope. The portal adds nothing to the main article which is a superior navigation portal to this page in portal space and attracts more readers. 202 page views vs 19,428 page views on 30 days. Legacypac (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another limited-focus portal. This portal is also plain-looking. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maintained, 1 subpages, ---------- created 2018-07-04 11:58:04 by User:Waggers, maintained by User:Waggers : Portal:Carry On. Pldx1 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the films, compilations and TV series, the biographies of the actors must number far more than 37; this is a series of sufficient scope to merit a portal. Being "plain looking" is not a deletion rationale. This portal needs more work - as indeed does the related content - but there's no deadline. Waggers TALK 22:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who have various roles in other films are not totally within tje scope - and if they are notable actors with articles - they will have other roles. Legacypac (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that means they couldn't/shouldn't be included. Such tangential information is often of interest to readers, and piquing interest is what portals are all about. Waggers TALK 15:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film series that does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Narrow scope fails the WP:POG criterion that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Aqua Teen Hunger Force task force

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: Mark inactive. No need to delete, we can just mark this as inactive and carry on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Aqua Teen Hunger Force task force

This task force is not a task force because it has only ever had one editor who did anything to create it. They abandoned it in 2015. Almost all the posts on the talkpage are mass generic postings except for a merger proposal no one discussed and a notification of an AfD. A wikiproject with exactly one editor that rightly quit working on it when it failed to attract any interest between 2011-2015 is not a wikiproject it is a failed idea that needs cleanup by deletion. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A non-task-force task force. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the request comes from a WikiProject member. MfD is not for WikiProject outsiders micromanagement. MfD Busywork is not net productive volunteering. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator appears to confuse WikiProject with task force. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These taskforces are coming up as associated to portals. So nuke the ones that never got off the ground as we find them. Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean “coming up as associated to Portals”. What about it looks like a portal to you? What is doing the “coming up”? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The automated portals are calling up a Wikiproject when one exists matching the page name regardless of how active or inactive or never got off the ground the wikiproject was or is. That is how we are finding them. Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Faulty nomination. Taskforce has five members, and it should just be marked inactive if anything. The semi-automated creation of Portal:Aqua Teen Hunger Force has little to do with this task force for a ton of reason. Chief among them probably is that Happypillsjr (who created the portal) isn't even a participant of the task force. Meets WP:PRJCRE just barely enough to warrant its inclusion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:17, 25 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization

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: No consensus to delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization

5 pages in the category. The selected "bio" is a DAB page. Old portal but junk and seemingly narrow topic (or so poorly presented it looks narrow) Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep. @Legacypac's description does not seem to be an accurate representation of the portal. It actually has three separate article lists, of 21 articles, 44 articles, and 17 articles.

I don't know what Legacypac's 5 pages in the category refers to, but Category:Tamil history seems to show a lot of content. I haven't investigated how much of that is "ancient", but it seems that the nominator also didn't do much investigation before proposing deletion, which per WP:BEFORE they should do. For example Category:Chola dynasty seems to be ancient, and there are 51 pages in that category alone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Category listed on the portal under Category is Category:Sangam period which has 5 pages in it and no subcategories. How should I know what other possible category about some other random topic someone could have built this portal on? In mainspace the title Ancient Tamil civilization is a redirect to Sangam period so that looks like the correct category for this portal title. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, How should you know? By the cunning magic of clicking the edit button and looking at the source code of the portal to see how it is actually built.

That should be routine practice before proposing the deletion of any portal, and I am alarmed that your reply suggests you do not do so before every MFD nomination. I have done this with every portal which I have taken to MFD, except for the mass nominations where I used a series of tools to examine the code automatically and verified samples. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even when you are wrong - by failing to look at the category listed as the category on the page - you still find it in you to treat me like I'm some sort of idiot that does not know where the edit button is. Go away you troll. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, no I am not wrong. You looked at only one element of the portal, and on that basis you made a nomination which grossly misrepresents the nature of the portal.

I don't care who makes the nomination. If it is a misleading nomination I will point that out, regardless of who made it. And if it is severe misrepesentation, I will say so, regardless of who made it. So no, I will not go away ... and I ask you retract that allegation that I am a troll. You have made that personal attack before, and I have had enough.

Most times, when I identify a problem like that, editors are grateful and correct their error, because they actually want their assessment to be accurate. But you repeatedly treat every correction as a personal attack, and leave errors uncorrected, even when it derails the whole discussion. One of the key signs of an editor who is working good faith is that they correct their errors, but I repeatedly see you failing to do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you continue to troll me and it needs to stop. You started with "I don't know what Legacypac's 5 pages in the category refers to." I showed you the obvious answer from the face of the portal and you still say I'm wrong. Seriously stop trolling. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, @Legacypac. You quite spectacularly don't get the problem. You didn't identify which category you were talking about, so I queried that. You looked at the category which matches the head article, which is way narrower in scope than the portals' title, which was what I looked for. That's why I linked the categories I had examined, and queried what category you had used. Neither of us was wrong about that; we were both legitimately looking at difft things. The confusion could all have been avoided if you had simply linked the category whose content you were counting, esp since its title is radically different to the page title.

The rest of your nomination is where the problem remains. Your description of the portal as junk and seemingly narrow topic is simply wrong. You didn't bother to check the actual scope, you still don't see the relevance of the fact that you didn't bother to do the basic check which would have shown you that the portal has 82 pages in its selection. Worst of all, you still take it all not just as personal attack, but as trolling.

For me, this is the final straw in your long history of treating multiple XFD venues as goal-focused battlefields rather than as a collective effort to establish facts and build a consensus. That's all I will say in this venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No you missed the obvious - the category right on the face of the page - and attacked me like I pulled it from thin air. I don't swear but if I did I would use unkind words for your constant badgering and assumptions of bad faith against a dedicated editor. There are words for people like you. Legacypac (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually wrote was I don't know what Legacypac's 5 pages in the category refers to. Your decision to characterise that as an attack and as a troll is bizarre. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to quote the following sentence from the first MFD: "I see no value in portals; not even the featured ones. May be when Wikipedia was new this space was of some use. But many portals are dead since long with no activity on them. Some editors believe that deletion of such portals implies that other portals are worth staying. That's a case of OSE. But we will have to look into this namespace now or later; so why not now?" Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - That isn't influencing my !vote. But it is relevant that some editors thought, four years ago, that portals were of little value. We have seen that creating thousands of portals isn't of value, and that robotic portals are not of value. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tamil civilization. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tamil civilization (2nd nomination). The portal was then renamed from Tamil civilization to Ancient Tamil civilization. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the second MFD, TTH responded to concerns about the portal by saying that they had rebuilt the portal from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Unfortunately, I have negative trust in the ability of the portal platoon to rebuild portals from scratch, and have observed that they break portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization. Old portal, 1 subpages, created 2012-05-19 18:51:03 by User:Wiki Raja. I agree with so poorly presented it looks narrow. The main article is rather History of Tamil Nadu. In any case, the topic is clearly encyclopedic. 1750 views in 90 days seems to be a large score for a portal... I think this one should be kept, while waiting for a general discussion about deleting or not the whole portal space. In between, the appearance of a maintainer would help. Pldx1 (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have Portal:Tamil Nadu which, if properly constructed, would cover the state's history. There is also a related miscapitalised Portal:Tamil People (Tamil people is the head article) which includes info on their history. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, Portal:Tamil Nadu has a significantly narrower geographical scope. See the article Sangam period, which says:

In Old Tamil language, the term Tamilakam (Tamiḻakam தமிழகம், Purananuru 168. 18) referred to the whole of the ancient Tamil-speaking area, corresponding roughly to the area known as southern India today, consisting of the territories of the present-day Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, parts of Andhra Pradesh, parts of Karnataka and northern Sri Lanka[1][2] also known as Eelam.

So the history of the state of Tamil Nadu is only a subset of the scope of this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS note that the para I quoted is reproduced as the second para of the portal. It's hard to see how the nominator could have missed that when proposing Portal:Tamil Nadu as an alternative to this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz off - I was responding to Pldx1's comment. Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a private discussion, take it to user talk. This is a public, consensus-forming discussion where suggestions of alternate portals are a public issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not helpful to readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic looks broad enough for a portal. Transhumanist has hand-selected 21 general articles, 42 literature articles, 17 bios and 6 images, which seems plenty to be going along with. Unlike the navbox portals, it is easy to add/subtract articles/images to improve the portal. Unless I'm missing something the original portal before Transhumanist's edits does not look to be worth saving. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Portal:History of India certainly would. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Espresso Addict. Not a topic I'm particularly knowledgeable about but seems clear that sufficient scope has been demonstrated for a portal to exist. Waggers TALK 14:44, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashir Singer

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) 19:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ashir Singer

Unsourced BLP (autobiography) Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but blanking it to remove the links or ignoring it would be preferred. There are thousands of drafts more deserving of a deletion discussion. G13 can catch stuff like this. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because it doesn't need deleting yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMFD. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ignore all rules, yes, it could be left to get G13'd but let's be real here, a quick Google search shows that no amount of editing will make this person notable, so while it's here, we may as well pre-emptively enact the result we all know is inevitable. SITH (talk) 12:21, 28 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.

April 18, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:El Circo de PR

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 Note this is completely redundant to the older El Circo de La Mega, and an unlikely target for recreation, so redirect has not been made. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:El Circo de PR

Apparently the same program as El Circo de La Mega which has had an article since 2008. The editor responsible for creating this article moved this article to draft, apparently to dispose of it. (This is one of many ongoing problems with this editor) AussieLegend (✉) 04:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Not clear that this draft needs deleting yet, rather than to be allowed to die of old age. Deleting this draft is a separate decision from whether this editor needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unless there is a specific issue with the page let it die naturally. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only real issue is that the page should really be at Draft:El Circo de La Mega. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to a different title if desired. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm curious as to why people think this should be kept when there is no future for it. The eventual target for it is El Circo de La Mega, which already has an article so it can never be moved there and the only contributor has now been indeffed so he's not going to edit it. There's just no point in keeping. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, redirect it to El Circo de La Mega. No need to discuss such duplicate pages here. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:43, 11 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Supermarket

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: keep. After having to resort to a head count (I'm ignoring the rules here, because the discussion is so old), it seems that consensus just barely leans towards keep. There are 6 keep votes, as opposed to 5 delete votes. However, as pointed out by Northamerica1000, one of the delete votes was a proof by assertion, and had no basis in policy or guidelines. As such, I left the vote out of the count, leaving 4 delete votes and 6 keep votes. As this was a difficult closure to make, feel free to notify me as to anything I may have missed or done wrong. (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Supermarket

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated portal built with no care that should be deleted. Featured articles include mortgage loan, first aid kit, legume, sauces, diet food, luggage, canning, Confectionery, greeting card, toy, laundry, book, baby food, Incandescent light bulb and so on. A more random collection of articles would be hard to assemble, and not one of the articles will help anyone learn about supermarkets. Some of the pages are about processes (canning, laundry) not even things you can buy. At least the photos show supermarkets in Japan and Serbia look pretty much the same, but we can see that in the article. Legacypac (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The selected article appears to be a completely indiscriminate collection. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely room for improvement, but I am not convinced that it needs to be deleted.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you selected mortgage loan, first aid kit, and canning as featured articles here User:Happypillsjr Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes the WP:POG guidelines. I have fixed the Selected articles section by copy editing the portal (diff), which makes the nomination rather moot at this point, both in terms of content concerns presented and in terms of overall notions regarding users that apparently don't "care". The portal now only lists relevant content in this section. An idea would be to notify WT:FOOD about such matters, rather than simply nominating for deletion; simple errors such as this are often easily remedied. Furthermore, passes WP:POG per the overall availability of articles, as demonstrated in the edit I performed, as well as that in the category, listed below.

(Select [►] to view subcategories)

Supermarkets

Supermarkets by continent

Supermarkets by country

Supermarkets by culture

Defunct supermarkets

Lists of supermarkets

Attacks on supermarkets

Supermarket banks

Hypermarkets

Supermarket tabloids

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and find someone to maintain the page. The creator obviously is not interested in presenting something useful and WikiProject Portals (which you are part of) can't be bothered to check for obvious problems like a completely indiscriminate collection of articles.

Also [33] is not a fix - now the portal displays an indiscriminate selection of random supermarket chains from around the world. What use is that to anyone? Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter if NA1K is a member of the WikiProject? No, it doesn't. You're grasping at straws. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because they were a good part of the mass creation of these portals, directly making about 70 and editing many created by others. Anyway they are coming around to thinning the herd now so things are looking up. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A weird hodgepodge. The fact that the Keepers say that they have fixed the identified problems every time just makes me wonder how many unidentified problems there are. (Hmmm. Are they like UFOs, from somewhere else in the Universe?) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "weird" for a portal about supermarkets to present content about supermarkets? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiPortals team should be fixing pages with obvious errors (like when they create the pages) long before someone outside the project spots the errors. I don't consider paragraphs and logos about random supermarket chains in Japan and Finland to be serving the readers in a meaningful way. Still no answer on how mortgage loan, first aid kit, and canning were chosen as featured articles for this portal. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NA1K. This is a broad enough topic for a portal, even if the present one could use improvement. Lepricavark (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the criterion for excluding Portal:Universe and maintaining this?Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is yet another pointless, abysmally-made, automated portal which readers don't use. The head article Supermarket can do the job better.

It is built off 18 navbox templates. As usual with these automated portals, the quality of work in their construction is abysmal: 5 of the 18 templates listed in the source do not exist, but the similarly-named templates which do actually exist are linked further down the portal page.

Navboxes used

Those can be fixed if any of the editors who want to keep this this portal can be bothered. But that still leaves a portal which is redundant to the head article Supermarket, to which I have added[34] the navboxes. We do not need a separate page just to display a set of navboxes.

The viewing stats are also very clear: readers do not use this portal. See the pageviews for the period from 08/02/2019 - 03/04/2019, which is from just after the portal's creation to just before being brought to attention here at MFD:

Portal:Supermarket: total 304 view, daily average 6

Head article Supermarket: total 49,551 views, daily average 901

That's 163 views of the head article for every view of the portal. Yet again, readers simply don't use these portals.

It is appalling that editors are yet again being asked to waste time debating this rubbish, rather tan speedy-deleting it. The utter sloppiness of this pseudoportal is reminiscent of its creator @Happypillsjr's creation of Portal:Reykjavík, which has only one article in its scope: see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Reykjavík. It also reminds me of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Palace of Versailles, a portal created by @The Transhumanist whose actual content is about a Japanese band. And sadly, it also reminds me of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Ohio State University, where @Northamerica1000 made a similar defence of a portal with on average only 4 daily pageviews.

It's long past time for those editors to stop defending this abysmally-made, redundant, unused junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2019-02-04 05:17:02 by User:Happypillsjr, to be deleted: Portal:Supermarket. Pldx1 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's a cute printout, but "Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2019-02-04 05:17:02 by User:Happypillsjr, to be deleted: Portal:Supermarket." has no qualification for deletion based upon any guidelines, policies, or anything. Furthermore, the phrase at the end of the script, "to be deleted" provides no qualification, other than a blanket statement with an empty proof by assertion. Just saying. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The images presented are rather proving that Sainsbury's supermarket checkouts uses English, while Fruit on display in a supermarket in Japan uses Japanese and Brazilian supermercado in São Paulo uses... (ask the Wikipedia reference desk if you have any doubt). What great discoveries, that requires a portal. Pldx1 (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Northamerica1000. You have chosen to write your 18:28 comment between my 11:25 !vote and my 11:35 comment. Just saying. And now, you are asking for more details. Just saying. This portal was created just by clicking on a 14 characters formula. This was done so quickly that the DYK search keys are, even now: "Supermarket | NYC Subway | New York [Ss]ubway". But you have nothing to say about that. Just saying. And now, you are requiring that each and anyone here at MfD spend large amounts of time to consider how empty is this empty portal. Just saying. Perhaps you should answer to my argument that this portal only proves that each supermarket uses the language of the country it is located. Just saying. And since I have used five times the magical formula 'Just saying', and you only once, my arguments are five times better than yours. Or perhaps not. Pldx1 (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, problematic DYK content can be dealt with by editing the portal, for example, by removing the DYK section or commenting it out . Other changes can also be performed by copy editing it. It's all good. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know that PLU codes are Price look-up codes ? Additionally, did you know how you can access this info from the Portal:Supermarket ? Remember: a portal is supposed to be used as a navigation tool. Pldx1 (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Wikipedia rules require more then one template, and Portal:Supermarket has 18 all total it should be kept.Catfurball (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, @Catfurball. The policy is that the page should not be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Since all the navboxes are also transcluded in the head article, this is just as much a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as a portal built off one navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst supermarkets may be an important part of many people's everyday lives it's not a broad topic for an encyclopedia (only a tiny fraction of encyclopedia articles are about this topic. For info: Supermarket is VA4. Retail at VA3 would be a bit less unreasonable as a portal topic). There is insufficient editor interest in creating/maintaining portals at this level of narrowness to ensure that such portals provide a quality experience to readers (taking them out of mainspace). DexDor^(talk) 19:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A niche interest perhaps but this topic has a significant number of related articles so is a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Waggers TALK 11:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waggers - improvements are certainly possible here, but they do not require deletion. There is ample content available to expand it with. DexDor's comment about it being a tiny fraction of the encyclopaedia being about this topic is irrelevant as that applies to every topic (even something as massively broad as "biographies" are only small part of the encyclopaedia). I would prefer a rename to Portal:Supermarkets though, but that's very minor and not something I care about enough to defend if someone objects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's massively more biographical articles than there are articles about supermarkets (perhaps a factor of about a thousand). Supermarket(s) is a subtopic of Retail which is a subtopic of Trade which is a subtopic of Economy which is a subtopic of Society (a topic that certainly isn't a tiny fraction of the encyclopedia). DexDor^(talk) 20:42, 8 June 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.

April 17, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Friends (2nd nomination)

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) 19:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Friends

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Old line portal about the TV show. The only articles in the category tree in this topic are on the characters and lists of episodes. The article has links to this content anyway. Individual TV shows should not have portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep – Meets WP:POG~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I have struck my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Comment~~. I don't see the deletion rationale here, beyond 'I don't like it'. This is a very popular piece of television. The top-level article is a GA. The actors were strongly associated with it, and some have well-developed articles. There are articles on some individual episodes, some of which are high quality eg (picked at random from the template) "The One with the Embryos". There is a taskforce devoted to the topic, though it seems inactive. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the same editor going around to every portal article there is and either nominating it for deletion or replacing portal articles with a redirect, can we just form a consensus somewhere about portal articles and why they should or should not exist? This one doesn't get that many views per day anymore. Is it only those with low number of people noticing them getting eliminated in this round? Dream Focus 03:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I don't think you meant to type "every portal article there is". UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather me say 99% of all portals? Join the discussion at [35] or wherever else its being had. A search for Miscellany_for_deletion and "portal"[36] shows 2,402 results. Add in the year 2019 and only 827 listed. So a lot are being deleted constantly, just like the great purges of them in the past. Dream Focus 21:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a bad portal (a lot better than most new portals), although the "seasons" box should probably be in order instead of random. Many TV shows are their own fictional universes, and are large enough for portals (an obvious example is Doctor Who). —Kusma (t·c) 07:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's of course a judgement call by the community as to whether the topic of Friends is broad enough to be consistent with what WP:POG requires (and which is a separate requirement from the count of related articles needed to support the portal), but my judgement says no. If you asked me for an example of one that fell on the sufficient-breadth-of-topic side, my judgement would be Portal:The Simpsons (if that's at all helpful); while !voting delete here, I don't subscribe to the more general rule stated by the nominator in his nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ - Replying to User:Espresso Addict - I don't see the keep rationale, other than "This is a very popular piece of television". If any one TV show of the silver age of television needed a portal, it would be this one, with a long run of episodes and multiple stars. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Processes default to keep, if there's no harm involved. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment' - Yes. Espresso Addict and I respectfully disagree. They have a reasoned position on this portal, which is more than I can say for most of the Keep arguments for most of the portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Replying to User:Dream Focus - Yes. I would like to see a Request for Comments about portals. But in the meantime, we have a procedure for dealing with them one at a time. If portal advocates don't like the fact that most of the portals are being deleted, that is a reason for them to publish an RFC to establish a modern consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Historical note. It appears that there was a malformed or empty version of the portal more than a decade ago that was deleted, which is irrelevant to this discussion, but that is why this is a second nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it meets WP:POG then keep it. No rule against individual TV shows having portals. Dream Focus 20:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 5 where consensus determined the previous close was a WP:BADNAC. It is requested that this discussion is closed by an admin.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Friends task force is inactive. Last post was 3 years ago asking if it was inactive and getting no reply. Legacypac (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I have struck my Delete !vote. I still don't see the keep rationale, but I don't see the need to delete either. If TV shows from the silver age of television are suitable subjects for portals, this one is. A few contentious heritage portals should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old portal, 58 subpages, created 2011-10-27 09:52:01 by User:ScriptDoctor. This is surely not a a very popular piece of portal. See [wmflabs], 8 views per day, half of the views of Portal:Ancient Tamil civilization, which itself is not such an hit-parade. Moreover, arguing about a broad encyclopedic topic for a portal displaying a great total of 6 articles, 3 episodes and 3 pictures seems to be a joke. Pldx1 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pldx, too narrow of a topic for a portal, and nobody is using it. Leviv ich 05:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned, woefully incomplete, portal on a narrow topic (single TV show), which fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

It is so grossly incomplete that it provides a useless overview of the subject. See Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Friends: only 3 selected episodes, and 6 selected articles; Portal:Friends/Main Characters is just 6 links. The selected article pages were all created in 2011, since when they have all had either no edits or a few minor edits. This has been abandoned for 8 years.

The head article Friends is a massively better navigational hub. It has three comprehensive navboxes, an fine infobox, a list of characters, etc etc. The portal is just a badly-designed, underdeveloped, abandoned WP:REDUNDANTFORK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 26 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.

April 16, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Computer-generated imagery

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: merge Portal:Computer-generated imagery to Portal:Computer graphics. MER-C 11:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Computer-generated imagery

Clearly largely redundant to Portal:Computer graphics. Both are old portals. Portal guidelines caution against duplicating the topic of another portal. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to this. However, I'd suggest that CGI is the superior portal by quite a large margin. Personally, I'd prefer a refactor of CGI to CG and deletion of CG. Perhaps a portal on the topic is still a useful resource to some. http://stats.grok.se/en/201904/Portal:Computer-generated%20imagery is giving an internal server error so I can't really assess that. Doug (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal CGI is running about 11 views a day while Portal:Computer graphics is running 1137 views in 30 days. If the decision is to move CGI over CG and rename that would be fine with me. They are very close to the same topic. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adding the other portal so that one can be deleted and the other kept.
Keep one and Delete the other. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least one of them

- Old portal, 22 subpages, created 2008-06-24 15:02:16 by User:Dhatfield. Portal:Computer-generated imagery

- Old portal, 22 subpages, created 2008-06-30 16:33:33 by User:Dhatfield. Portal:Computer graphics

- pageviews = [wmflabs]

one of them should be used to ameliorate the other and then be deleted.

The best would be that someone steps forward as a maintainer, and takes the burden of the corresponding editorial decisions.

Pldx1 (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Portal:Computer graphics. I believe that to be the more commonly used name, but that's based on subjective experience as opposed to any hard evidence. I think a lot of people recognise the acronym "CGI" without knowing what it stands for. Waggers TALK 14:48, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Royal Australian Navy

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: Keep. This has been up for more than 2 months now. I see no consensus for a merge with Portal:Military of Australia due to its rename. The two now have slightly different scopes. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Royal Australian Navy

A country portal is enough to contemplate all the subtopics that may exist regarding it. I think sub portals about countries (Portal:cuisine of "country" , military of "country", economy of "country") are unnecessary and does not meet WP:POG Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the premise of this nom. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion on this portal in particular, but I disagree strongly with the premise. Does anyone seriously think, say, Portal:United States should cover all U.S. topics? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Espresso Addict:, just like the article United States cover all U.S. topics.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you advocate deleting all articles in mainspace on U.S. topics? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict:, I advocate, for example, that Wikipedia: WikiProject Military history, rather than maintaining and creating a "military of" portal for each country, maintain and create a "military of" section in each country portal, centralizing edits and watchers with others wikiprojects.Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals should only be split into smaller portals when they get too big, just like articles should only be split up when they get too big. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Old portal, 58 subpages, created 2008-07-27 09:16:19 by User:Hossen27. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Royal Australian Navy. Pldx1 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well within the scope of Military of Australia and segregating this branch out is not necessary. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending clarification. Reading the nomination and the nominator’s further writing suggests that this should be redirected into another portal, or merged with another portal, rather than simply nuked. Qwirkle (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, this is one of the more informative portals. Would not oppose a merge with Portal:Military of Australia. RobDuch (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RobDuch:, is an interesting idea, but how do you suggest this merge? I imagine something like keeping the subpages of the original portal.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about how portals are structured. Keeping some subpages sounds good. RobDuch (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the following comments:
- - We definitely don't need this portal and Military of Australia.
  - Another heritage portal by an inactive creator.
  - Portals are not articles and do not need to be split because they get too large, although their coverage can be too small or too narrow.
  - No comment on specific deletion proposals for anything not at MFD, but many more are in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, I agree with RobDuch. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, I agree with RobDuch. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cadaver and Stop Joking. Indeed, this is not a portal but the remains of a cadaver. Let us analyze seriously the elements of this pseudo-portal, as described by its main page. We have:

Title	how	page_used	TEXT last modified
Introduction	Transclude lead excerpt	PAGENAME : paragraphs= : files=1
Selected article	Transclude random subpage	max= 4: subpage=Selected article	2008
Selected images	Transclude files as random slideshow	PAGENAME
Selected Anniversary	simple file	/Selected anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}	2008
Selected biography	Transclude random subpage	max= 3: subpage=Selected biography	three 2008, one 2012
Selected equipment	Transclude random subpage	max=10: subpage=Equipment	2008
Subcategories	simple file	/Categories	2008

Thus, ABSOLUTELY ANY TEXT in these snippets is exactly unchanged from 2008. There are some picture replacements by the usual bots, not by a human user. Oh, yes, there is ONE biography snippet that dates from 2012 (so recent)... but this one is excluded by the max=3 parameter (too recent, may be). Moreover, each of these outdated snippets could be re-extracted at will, in an automated manner, from the corresponding article, as a starting point for any maintainer who would appear... if anyone had any real interest with a portal about this topic... and if this topic was recognized a sufficiently broad one.

This cadaver was galvanized by TTH in 2018. As a result, we have a marvelous line {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} that mainly says: this portal is not maintained, while any subpage can be deleted at will. What is to be merged ?

You can merge the empty set to anything you want, this would only change nothing. Pldx1 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one was missing: Did You Know that all the anniversaries of the Australian Navy occurred during July and August ? Pldx1 (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a terrible rationale for deletion; it’s based on input rather than output. Dump something simply because no one has had to fix it lately? That could be because it didn’t need fixing. Something that acts as a way of seeing across interrelated topics need not change in the same way that those topic articles themselves may. Qwirkle (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no one has had to fix it. What a great joke ! Nothing has ever occurred to the Australian Navy since 2008! What have they done with the taxpayers' money during all these 11 years ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from (mis)use of ephemeral terms like “latest” and “recent”, why should the majority of information here change rapidly? This is gathering together broad topics whose interrelationships could easily remain stable for decades. I suspect this is true of a good many other portals; thats a poor reason to delete. Qwirkle (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all that turned wrong, everything went right. Sure. This is the way all Navies are acknowledging their losses. Have you found an 'explanation' to this strange behavior of the Australian Navy's anniversaries: they only are occurring during July and August. I for sure have such an explanation: nobody cares about this portal, because nobody thinks this portal could ever become a useful navigation tool. But you seems to disagree. Pldx1 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending a wider consensus on which topics should have portals.

This portal is not actually broken. Despite its limited scope, the lack of actual brokenness puts it way ahead of most old-style portals. And the limited pageviews are a problem common to nearly all portals.

The last month of cleanup MFDs has been an important process of getting rid of the recent influx of junk, and some old perma-broken portals. But with that process nearing completion, some editors are appears to be moving onto MFDing much older, non-broken portals which really fall into the scope of issues which should be decided at RFC.

For the record, I personally think that this portal is way too narrow. However, it's also not trivia, which is how I would describe the slew of single-person portals discussed at MFD. The question of precisely what we draw the line on narrow topics needs to be decided as a matter of principle at an RFC, rather than making ad hoc decisions on individual cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a reason to delete. Vermont (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the WP:POG guideline's prohibition against portals that are redundant to another portal; this one is completely covered by Portal:Military of Australia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination is a pure case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'm afraid, and doesn't give any policy based reason for deleting. The scope is plenty broad enough for a portal to exist. Waggers TALK 14:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This portal has 6 daily average pageviews, as opposed to 745 for the article. We have very seldom kept portals with fewer than 10 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 11 June 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Vallarta Botanical Gardens

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: keep for now, without prejudice to another nomination in a couple of months time if concerns aren't addressed. MER-C 11:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vallarta Botanical Gardens

The focus seems to be too small for a WikiProject. The collaboration seems to have concluded several years ago, and none of it actually took place on the WikiProject pages. Perhaps this could be moved to Bluerasberry's user space. Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too narrow a project Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035 and Legacypac: Advise me on documentation. I presume that you would not want the memory of this collaboration purged. Do you advise my moving this into Commons or Meta?

The intent was to match image upload with English and Spanish Wikipedia editing. As you noticed, the project is stalled.

There is a next generation project in WP:New York Botanical Garden, which Wikimedia New York City has found easier to access and where there is a Wikipedian on staff participating.

Also, is there any policy or guidelines that anyone would share to determine when to document institutional collaborations on English Wikipedia versus anywhere else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem the use of the term "WikiProject"? Should this documentation just be moved to WP:Vallarta Botanical Gardens to resolve the issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making it a part of a larger project is one good option. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening where some related pages are linked. You might also consider placing the discussion at the talkpage of the head article (perhaps as a subpage of the talkpage if there is a lot of date). That might actually help you find interested editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: This project never had the goal of seeking interested editors. The goal was to share images, published naturalist descriptions, and other media into the Wikimedia ecosystem. The people engaging with the content would either find it without seeking this project, or they would be the userbase of researchers and students physically at the garden. This could be a subpage of the WikiProject you mention, but probably the stronger affiliation is with Mexico, libraries in general, or any system for listing organizations seeking to provide media to Wikimedia projects. I can assist with a move but I expect there is no documentation anywhere which establishes consensus about what to do with pages like this. I am not sure that WikiProject Horticulture would want this.

If there is a place to discuss the bigger picture of managing this kind of information then I would join that conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It's just not a good fit for a wikiproject. You could place in userspace and invite specifoc users to help. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: ~~You could always~~ It might be best to Transwiki to Meta. In reference to the above comment about institutional coordination, a relevant essay you may be interested in reading is m:Not my wiki. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Ce 00:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably explain that Meta might be a better fit because the project reaches across to commons and enwiki. That's my take on it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep - A Keep that is not prejudiced against a deletion nomination within 60 days if not improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – To allow Bluerasberry time to decide how this content can be used, rather than them being forced into a decision within six days. Perhaps userfication would be a good move for the time being. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 17 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.

April 15, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Two overlooked automated portals

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two overlooked automated portals

Both these portals are:

automated portals whose "selected articles" list is based solely on a single navbox (Portal:Aylesbury on Template:Aylesbury, and Portal:Stevie Nicks on the malformed Template:{{subst:PAGENAME}}).

Even if Portal:Stevie Nicks was fixed, that still leaves them both simply loated versions of a navbox, which does a better job of facilitating navigation because it is present on all pages within the set ... whereas the portal is on a separate page and adds nothing.

the product of mass creations by the now-topic-banned portalspammer @The Transhumanist. 1,390 such spam portals were deleted in one go at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox (closed yesterday)

So I propose that these pages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

Both were overlooked in my mass nominations because they are slightly differently formatted to the thousands of other spam portals. This glitch was kindly drawn to my attention by @Legacypac at MFD:Portal:Academic dress, where I describe[37] why my list-making process produced false negatives in what I have now found to be 4 cases out of the 3336 pages scanned: Portal:Stevie Nicks, Portal:Aylesbury, Portal:Academic dress and Portal:California State University.

Note that Portal:Aylesbury was previously nominated for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California, which was closed on 11 April as "no consensus", without prejudice to renomination.

The 4th portal in this set of overlooked spam portals is Portal:California State University, which I have not re-nominated. It was added post-nomination to WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, a single-page nomination where discussion was disrupted by the hijacking[38][39] of the discussion to create a bundled nom of several dozen pages. The result was inevitably a WP:TRAINWRECK, which ended up as delete most, but keep several including Portal:California State University. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants in the previous discussion of Portal:Aylesbury: @Legacypac, Robert McClenon, Ɱ, RadioKAOS, Northamerica1000, Northamerica1000, The Transhumanist, Fram, SMcCandlish, Levivich, and PointsofNoReturn.

Please note that this nomination is neutral about whether a portal on these topics should exist. It is a solely proposal to delete the current automated portals.

There is no non-automated version to revert to. The history of these portals is solely as automated, drive-by-created, single-navbox-based portals of the type which was mass-deleted yesterday at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – Per strong consensus at prior bundled MfDs for portalspam. Leviv ich 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close because there are too many nominations opened to today already. Also nom statements should not be used to attack other good faith editors. Using the terms used to describe terrorist actions is not nice. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "attack". And if there are too many nominations opened to today, that is because Legacy opened 36 new single-article nominations this morning alone, and is furious that I asked them to stop flooding MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really enjoy trolling don't you. Legacypac (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was responding to your petty revenge troll, which amounts to "Legacypac says close BHG's nomination because Legacypac has already spammed MFD with too many nominations today, and doesn't like the fact that BHG asked Legacypac to stop flooding MFD". I see that you have removed[40] that discussion from your talk without archiving it, despite that the only two other editors to comment both supported my request.[41][42].

And I did not accuse you of terrorist actions. See Hijacking (disambiguation), where the first 13 definitions are all about hijacking in computing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as follows:
- I respectfully take issue with User:Legacypac as to what he calls a Speedy Close, which is really a snow close (since there is no CSD criterion. This should be allowed to run seven days, especially in order to give reviewers time to catch up on the backlog of nominations. The backlog of nominations calls for allowing seven days, not for rushing to judgment.
- Neither of these is a broad topic.
- These are autommated portals, and automated portals are a Bad Idea.
- No conclusion as to whether manually constructed portals on these topics should or should not exist (although I think that they should not on these topics).
- I see no attacks.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom should be withdrawn. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering what @Legacypac is on about, it's this, that and the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to agree with Legacypac. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both procedurally and on the merits, at least for now. Procedurally, I agree with Legacypac that the real "portalspam" is this firehose of deletion nominations when we're still pending an RfC to actually figure out what community consensus is about portals and criteria for their creation/continuance. "Was created with the use of semi-automated tools" isn't a deletion rationale, for anything. On the merits, because both are significantly "linkful" and informative enough that they might be useful. I'm inclined to keep any geographical ones that are larger than big towns/small cities, though size isn't everything, and in this case Aylesbury is the county town of Buckinghamshire, a status comparable to a state capital in the US (and not all state capitals are big cities, which you might not know if not an American). On celebs and bands and the like, I'm a little more skeptical, and have expressed that skepticism before. But I don't see an actual deletion rationale presented. There is no argument that the Nicks portal (or the Aylesbury one) is useless, fails to be a portal, is misconfigured gibberish, or anything else. It's just more "I'm against it because The Transhumanist used a tool" hand-waving. Pending establishment of criteria that set particular limits on celeb/band/company/product/website/movie/whatever portals, WP:EDITING policy is firmly in play: editors are free to create whatever they want here, within the policies and guidelines, as long as it serves an encyclopedic purpose. Portals that actually have something in them and aren't screwed up in some way serve such a purpose (see strong consensus to retain them at the VPPOL RfC a year or so ago).
Disclaimers: I'm a Stevie Nicks fan. I used to live in Bucks.
Clarifications: I'm not a big user of portals, and was initially supportive of their complete dissolution in the old RfC, but have come around to the argument that some people appreciate and use them (I've started to do so a little myself), and that they are harmless. I remain convinced many should merge (e.g. Portal:Spaghetti to Portal:Pasta); there can't be a 1:1 correlation between articles and portals. (So, I might support a merger of the Nicks portal into a Fleetwood Mac portal.)
Editorializing: The problem with the rapid-fire stream of deletion nominations, of course, is that it's WP:FAITACCOMPLI. No one not obsessed with portals, pro or con, can keep up, and MfD leans deletionist by default, so the automatic result is going to be many portals being deleted that should not be deleted, and almost entirely on an invalid "down with The Transhumanist and his script" pseudo-rationale. Pretty sad, really. WP is not supposed to work this way, and XfDs in particular most certainly are not. Imagine if AfD had degraded to the point where you could nominate 100 articles about Tonga or Liechtenstein or other small places, without a real rationale, and get them deleted just because too few people have the patience to wade through it all and argue to keep them.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: there's a lot to unpick there, so I'll do it as bullet points

SMcC's cheering of Legacypac misses the point that Legacypac has been sulking because a) I asked Legacypac to stop on flooding MFD, and b) pointed out that the two substantive assertions made in one of their nominations were both false. If SMcC is genuinely concerned about what a firehose of deletion nominations, then the target of SMcC's complaints should be Legacypac's 36 separate nominations on individual portals this morning, not this one nomination.
SMcC writes I'm inclined to keep any geographical ones that are larger than big towns/small cities. Again, the nomination explicitly not is not about whether there should be a a portal for either of these topics. It is about deleting portals which add nothing to the navbox and head article, and nomination explicitly says in bold "".
SMcC writes On the merits, because both are significantly "linkful" and informative enough that they might be useful. They entirely duplicate the navboxes, of which they are WP:CONTENTFORKs. Their utility is by design less than that of either the navbox or the head article
SMcC writes Aylesbury is the county town of Buckinghamshire, a status comparable to a state capital in the US. No it's not. English counties have a mean population of <600,000, whereas US states have a mean population of about 6.5 million. US states have limited sovereignty, legislatures, citizenship, constitutions, armed forces, their own judicial system, and general powers of taxation. English counties have none of those things. That comparison is like comparing an open fishing boat to a frigate. Buckinghamshire County Council has no authority at all over the city of Milton Keynes, which is ceremonially part of Buckinghamshire, but a separate administrative area. No US state includes whole cities over which the state has no jurisdiction (and before you say "DC", the capital zone is no longer part of either Maryland or Virginia)
SMcC writes There is no argument that the Nicks portal (or the Aylesbury one) is useless, fails to be a portal, is misconfigured gibberish, or anything else. On the contrary, the first bullet point of the nomination does indeed make the argument that both are useless duplicates, that one is indeed. misconfigured gibberish. It is truly bizarre to see an oppose rationale based on complete untruth about the nomination.
SMcC writes Portals that actually have something in them and aren't screwed up in some way serve such a purpose (see strong consensus to retain them at the VPPOL RfC a year or so ago). Two red herrings there:
- the WP:ENDPORTALS asked whether all portals should be deleted, and the answer was a clear "no". However "don't delete everything" does not mean "keep everything".
- the principle that portals which are merely drive-by spam add nothing to the navbox and should be deleted has already been established by dozens of MFDs in recent weeks, and at an exceptionally well-attended MFD, which closed yesterday: see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox, and which about 60 editors agreed by a margin of over 7:1 to delete 1,390 driveby spam portals in one go.
It's just more "I'm against it because The Transhumanist used a tool" hand-waving. Yet again, that is a blatant untruth about the nomination. Again, read the first bullet point of the nomination.

I don't know what prompts SMcCandlish to pack so many falsehoods into a single XfD reply. It could be a reckless failure to read before commenting, or it could be a choice to tell flat-out lies, but I don't know which. Either way, it is highly disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really, really uninterested in any further personalization and aspersions about portal disputes. Half the point of what I posted (and what Legacypac posted – despite him also nominating various portals for deletion, for much sounder reasons) was that this has gone too far already. Doubling down, to just turn up the finger-pointing, is the least useful response. No one has made a "keep everything" argument, least of all me. Cf. Straw man. Maybe you had something in mind in the nomination other that "delete this because it was created by The Transhumanist with a script", but that's what the nomination goes on about, and what you've been going on and on about across so many of these MfDs and in other venues. So, I stand by what I wrote. I don't read minds and can't magically know what you're really thinking. But you're not psychic either, and do not determine through force of your own will how I or anyone else may perceive a nomination like this. We read what is written and make up our own minds. PS: I thought we agreed to avoid personal disputation like this. You pinged me to this discussion; I gave my input about both the portals in question and process, without surmising about your motives or personality, so please just drop it, and especially stop casting about with accusations of "falsehoods", etc. No one is lying here; just not everyone agrees with everything you say. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary. SmcC makes a long series of blatantly false assertions about this nomination, and then professes lack of interest in detail when the falsehoods are rebutted.

SMcC accuses me of hand-waving, but when called out on that objects to personalisation which he introduced.

Repeating a claim from his first post, SMcC says Maybe you had something in mind in the nomination other that "delete this because it was created by The Transhumanist with a script", but that's what the nomination goes on about

On the contrary, the first two paras of the nomination are about the substantive problem with these portals. Only one of the 8 paras even mentions TTH. So SMcC's assertion is a repeated, blatant lie, the latest in a series of lies which SMcC has chosen to tell about me. It's long past time for SMcC to stop disrupting en.wp's consensus-forming processes (and its dispute resolution processes too) by telling repeated lies.

The this has gone too far claim is plain deflection. Instead of engaging with the substantive reason advanced in this nomination and many other — that these portals are redundant duplication — SMcC is trying to claim that a problem which he refuses even to discuss has been identified in too many pages, and that we shoukd stop deleting further pages with the same problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm just not going there. One learns over time to not take fight-bait like this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McCandlish, the only fight bait here is that which you laid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both on the grounds of the subjects and the ways these portals were created. Per WP:POG portals are supposed to be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers, the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content and The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section. The Aylesbury portal is about a medium sized town, which I don't think constitutes a "broad topic", and none of the selected featured articles are above start class except the main article (and I really doubt List of civil parishes in Buckinghamshire is going to pull in readers). The Stevie Nicks portal has no selected articles at all, and since the scope of the portal is songs by Stevie Nicks I don't think that constitutes "diversified content" either. Furthermore both of these portals were written by TTH's portal creation script, which produces poor quality portals with little value beyond what can be gained from reading the main article. Hut 8.5 21:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-08-27 16:57:34 by User:TTH, to be deleted: Portal:Stevie Nicks

- Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-12-05 13:48:41 by User:TTH, to be deleted: Portal:Aylesbury

Pldx1 (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These two portals were created as 2 over a 3500+ series of broken automated portals. For the edification of User:SMcCandlish, let us recall that automated portals are not pieces of text written by a succession of editorial decisions, but are programs that will repeatedly call the random() function, and will produce random results. It has been largely proved that, without a careful maintenance, these random results (in the mathematical sense of the word) are more than often random (in the common sense of the word). Did You Know that spiders in the genus Plato have cubical egg sacs? about the featherless biped, is surely a great success ! Therefore choosing these two portals as flagships to convince the Wide World that portals are the best things ever found since the invention of Kimchi seems to be a strange choice, while stating portals that actually have something in them ... serve such a purpose about golem-portals that were awakened with only the 14-characters magical formula {{subst:bpsp}}... looks like a joke. Nevertheless, be at ease. What is discussed is not the deletion of the Buckinghamshire itself, nor even the deletion of the article about Buckinghamshire, but only the deletion of a portal that received 1,384 views in three months, i.e. 2 views per day (look at Views par day for the details and remember that 18-03-2019 was the beginning of the MfD_1 ). Pldx1 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as a very poor example, since curious facts like cubical egg sacs are exactly the sort of things we put on the front page in "Did You Know?", one of our most popular features in the entire history of WP. That a portal includes such things (given what portals are for, which is primarily browsing not research – i.e., edu-tainment) would appear to be a plus, not a minus. PS: I don't need you to tell me that we're not AfD'ing the article Buckinghamshire. Last I checked, I wasn't lobotomized last night. :-) I made no argument that had anything to do with the continued existence of that article or the one on Aylesbury. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC); smiley added (that wasn't meant to seem offense-taking, but on a later re-read it came across that way. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a portrait of the famous featherless biped. Pldx1 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I kept mistaking him for a velociraptor, but now that I see him up close .... — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- While I see where the discussion of Plato and the featherless biped came from, this discussion is not about his portal, which I added, regardless of whether that bundling was a mistake.
- We don't need a portal on every US state capital either.
- A county town in the United Kingdom really is more like a county seat in the United States than a state capital. UK counties, like US counties, are creatures of a higher-level entity, and are not self-governing. I am aware that counties in the United Kingdom have been redefined by Parliament, which does not happen to states in the United States, and cannot happen based on Article Four of the United States Constitution, because states of the United States are self-governing, and some were formerly independent, more like constituent countries, but most state capitals don't have portals either.
- I stand by my Delete vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I think a lot of editors would argue that US state capitals should have portals, if we keep portals at all. It's "interesting" that the VPPOL discussions about portals come out very supportive and broad, while ones at MfD come out very negative and narrow. Guess which one has more WP:CONLEVEL? Anyway, I wasn't trying to get you to change your mind, I just gave my view. Which at this point seems contrarian – in this venue, anyway, though not at the broader one. I'll repeat that I arrived at the VPPOL RfC in an opposition frame of mind and was swayed by the arguments to keep portals and do new things with them. That not all of the new things have been perfect isn't a good reason for us to go nuclear on them. But this does not appear to be a venue in which that view will be heard. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: they're not similar but would have been bundled as it was an oversight as part of a larger operation, so I don't really have an issue with bundling two portals, they can both be deleted per WP:POG. SITH (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your pinging didn't even work here. I hope this hasn't happened in other discussions here. $ɱ$ (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Narrow topics that are not suitable for portals. --RL0919 (talk) 12:08, 5 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Caribbean

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: Keep and improve. There is little practical use moving from the Portal namespace to the Draft namespace, either this is going to be improved on or it is not - suggest revisiting in 6 months if there have not been improvements. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Caribbean

Abandoned portal. You can tell it is abandoned because:

On October 10 The Netherlands Antilles were dissolved. Sint Maarten & Curaçao became countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Bonaire, Saba & Sint Eustatius became special municipalities within the Netherlands. (this happened in 2010 and looks like the newest news)
September 22: Cuban leader Fidel Castro made his first TV appearance in three months, saying "Well, I'm still here," in an interview taped this week. (BBC NEWS) (an amazing feat for someone who died 3 years ago. "This week" was in 2007.)
a bunch more outdated "news". Good for a laugh but a disservice to our readers.

Portals require a broad enough scope to attract both readers and editors. This does not attract either. 780 views in 30 days by disappointed readers who are getting outdated info vs 98,000+ readers on Caribbean a page with many editors working on it and watching it. Legacypac (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean courtesy talkpage notified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:POG in terms of having an adequately broad scope and availability of content, the latter of which is qualified per the category tree below. Concerns about outdated content can be easily handled by WP:COPYEDITING the portal, such as by commenting-out problematic sections, , and denoting the concerns in the comment and edit summary.

Select [►] to view subcategories

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it meets the guideline for breadth of subject matter but your !vote does not address the failure to of the portal to meet the guideline as a topic that attracts readers and editors. Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until it can be updated properly. The topic is fine, it's a recognised region of the world with a population of 43 million and plenty that can be covered in terms of history, culture, geography etc. Unless we're deprecating portals entirely (which is a separate issue) then we shouldn't delete this one for lack of scope. Hut 8.5 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no requirement for portals to provide news. If outdated news is the only flaw, the box could be deleted or hidden until maintainers are available. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2019

(UTC)

News is just the easiest area to show how little interest there is in maintaining this. I agree there is scope for a proper portal but maintenance by interested editors is required. No portal is a required portal. Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with the following comments:
- - This heritage portal precedes the existence of Portal namespace and was moved to Portal namespace by a script. None of its originators are currently active, which negates a possible reason to keep.
  - The comments do not appear to include an offer to maintain.
  - The area is broad enough to support a portal, but portals are not mandatory even for broad areas.
  - As noted, this portal is obviously not being maintained. An In The News section is not required, but is an indication of an abandoned portal.
  - If this portal is kept, portals about nations in the Caribbean should be redirected.
  - If a decision is made to keep this portal (against my !vote), it should be subject to the provision that it can be renominated for deletion in 60 days if it is not being maintained,

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old portal, 179 subpages, created 2005-07-05 08:48:43 by User:68.220.100.119. Provably abandoned. No prejudice of a recreation as a maintained one. Portal:Caribbean.

Pldx1 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source article is a level 4 vital article, meaning it is outside the top 1,000; this indicates it does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. No indication it would attract a large number of readers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm against using Vital articles (VA) assessments as a metric for portals on Wikipedia; the selection process at VA is very subjective, often opinion-based, sometimes based upon the simplest of straw polling, and is not reliable or objective. Assessment results often simply depend upon who shows up to "vote". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to hear which standard you would propose as an alternative. I guess it is much easier to shoot down others' ideas than to proporse some of your own. UnitedStatesian (talk)

@UnitedStatesian and Northamerica1000: Imo, Wikipedia coverage is a good metric, both quantity and quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a significant number of related articles so a good candidate for a portal. Might need some work due to the method of creation, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Waggers TALK 11:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFTDELETE or Draftify. This is clearly a broad topic, but the present long-abandoned portal is a disservice to readers. I checked a sample of the subpages, and most of them have not been touched for at least five years, and often twelve.

The discussion above is riddled with extreme euphemisms. For example, some editors say it needs to be "updated", and @Waggers says it needs some work ... which actually means "completely rebuilt from a blank sheet", because a set of 12-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers.

In the meantime, it is disruptive to continue to waste the time of readers by luring them to a page which has been abandoned for 12 years.

Notions that leaving it live will trigger improvement are implausible to the point of fantasy, because:

There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals .
Category:All portals currently contains 1,331 portals, of which over 1,000 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's about 80% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 13 years
Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. No particpant in this discussion has identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic.
Anyone who wants to build a decent portal on this topic may find parts of this abandoned relic to be valuable, which is why I advocate soft deletion or draftifying ... but I would prefer outright deletion to leaving this live. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a portal for an entire region of the world! I find you all are too aggressively deleting important portals. Yes, it's abandoned-- should we accelerate the decline of Wikipedia by removing it? Rather than destroying abandoned portals, why not set up a system for improving portal quality? Why not reach out to people who might help? It's clear there needs to be more outreach for a new generation of Wikipedians-- I pray there will be something left for them to build on. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tiredmeliorist, the portal meets the scope criterion of WP:POG, but it abysmally fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.

Sadly, some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of licence to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just because the scope is broad enough. POG is very clear that scope is a necessary condition, but an insufficient one: the portal must also be maintained.

It's all very easy to say "set up a system for improving portal quality". But with over 1,000 portals in poor shape, and few editors working on them, that improvemnt can never catch up with decay. If someone wants to create a portal on this topic which actually adds value and meet the core principle of WP:PORTAL — "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" — then they can create a new shell in seconds. But a long-abandoned portal like this one has nothing worth incorporating into a new portal, and it is grossly unfair to readers to keep on luring them to a portal which simply wastes their time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @BrownHairedGirl Thank you for responding. As a newcomer, I was unaware of how poorly setup the portal system was-- but I personally like the portals themselves. And an outdated one like this isn't "luring" or deceiving anyone-- we all know what Wikipedia is after all. It might even spur someone to become involved and update it! As Espresso Addict, Waggers and others have said, this is a notable topic, after all. It's not something a bot created 12 years ago. And as a newb, I would much rather build off a skeleton page like this than start from scratch.

What is actually happening here is that all these portals are being taken down by an elite cabal of deletionist Wikipedians without much input from anyone else. Unless someone is sitting on the page, you guys will overrun it with deletion requests simply because it is "unmaintained." I had no idea what was happening until I saw the Anthropology portal was deleted the other day. Who knew? Well, apparently BrownHairedGirl and Robert McClenon that's who -- same people who recommended this for deletion.

How about we get some more input before destroying all the portals?? --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Elite cabal, eh? As in editors who launch a public discussion, based on the long-established portals guidelines?

Presumably I am being managed by the illuninati and lizards.

Your reason for keeping amounts to your statement that I personally like the portals themselves. Which is pure WP:ILIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is a cabal behind any large virtual community has, since the early days of Usenet in the early 1980s, depended on what was meant by a cabal. Therefore the statements "There Is No Cabal" (WP:TINC) (and "There Is a Cabal") have always had some degree of dry on-line humor (that was sometimes missed, and taken to be either entirely serious or entirely unserious, both of which missed the point). However, the usual concept of a cabal, in virtual communities and the Internet, has implied a group that were acting more or less out of view, either secretly, or in a sort of open but quiet corner. Deletion in Wikipedia is not and cannot be done by a cabal. Deletion has done via MFD, which is a public Wikipedia forum, and some of the large deletions have been further publicized via central notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiredmeliorist - There has been a cabal, however, not deleting portals, which cannot be done quietly. Deletion is noisy. The creation of portals, or of any other pages, can be done quietly. New pages are checked quietly via New Page Patrol, but its purpose is primarily to maintain the quality of articles and to screen out spam, advertising, undisclosed paid editing, libel, copyright infringement, patent nonsense, biographies of living persons violations, hoaxes, and other stuff that does not belong in the encyclopedia. There has been a cabal that I call the portal platoon, consisting of a few editors led by The Transhumanist (the platoon leader), organized as a WikiProject (some of which are quiet and active, as this one has been), which created thousands of low-quality portals simply because they liked portals or because creating portals was fun. Some other editors, including User:BrownHairedGirl, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Legacypac, and myself only noticed the thousands of portals a few months ago. Since then, we have been actively seeking as much input as we can about low-quality portals, and have been, with notice and discussion, identifying and deleting low-quality portals, both automated portals created by the portal platoon, and old long-abandoned portals. 'How about we get some more input'? We did get input, via the usual notice and discussion. If you want any particular deleted portal relisted, that can be done. We have sought input much more than the portal platoon, a cabal, who created thousands of portals without input and with no real reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thanks, I appreciate the discussion (and clarification on the word "cabal", lol) --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion of Portal:Caribbean, Portal:Anthropology, and Portals

Comment to User:Tiredmeliorist - You propose getting some more input. We did, for two-and-one-half months, and are continuing to get input. The major discussion of portals began on 1 March 2019, with the awareness by some of us that thousands of portals had been created without discussion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive307#Thousands_of_Portals. All of the portals that have been deleted have been discussed for at least seven days before deletion. The portals that have been deleted fall mainly into two classes. The first is automated portals, which offer no advantage over what they are based on, normally a single navbox or a single list. The second is portals that have been abandoned without a portal maintainer for extensive periods of time. Portal:Anthropology was an abandoned portal, and Portal:Caribbean is an abandoned portal.

If you think that Portal:Anthropology was deleted too quickly, you can ask for review at Deletion Review. It appears to have been a proper close after at least seven days, but I would not object to a temporary undeletion and a Relist. (I don’t know what other editors will say.)

I personally am agreeable to having this portal, Portal:Caribbean, relisted for one more week. It was nominated for deletion on 15 April, so that it has been open for discussion for a month now, but we are not trying to rush the deletion of portals. (A cabal of editors whom I characterize as the portal platoon were trying to rush the implementation of thousands of portals, but that is not the subject now, and we are not trying to rush the deletion of portals.)

The guidelines for portals have always said that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. The Caribbean and Anthropology are both broad subject areas, but we have found that broad subject areas attract readers for the articles, but (perhaps contrary to expectation) not for the portals, and that many portals have waited years for portal maintainers. See the essay on waiting for portal maintainers. Portal:Caribbean attracted an average of 24 daily page views between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019, while Caribbean attracted 3,531 page views during that period. Portals fail to attract readers and portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The thing named Portal:Anthropology was not a portal, but an abandoned draft, with only ONE biography, etc., i.e. the shameful ONE of each pattern. Comparing with the one under discussion, is only painting Portal:Caribbean under worse colors than necessary. This one was a portal circa TEN years ago. Now, Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean is believed to be semi-active, politically correct version of "not different than dead". No one from this project said even one word here to defend this portal here. Today, you have added your name at the WikiProject. Great move ! But if you are the only survivor, I am not sure that your best move will be trying to mesmerize this defunct portal (30 views per day during the last three years, and even less recently). Moreover, I don't have the impression that, you, supposed to be a member of an active cabal of keep-people, are so much active at revisiting all these abandoned snippets but, maybe, I am wrong. Pldx1 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Robert McClenon, Pldx1, and BrownHairedGirl: Wow, I was not aware of all this... thanks for clarifying. Ok, nonetheless, these were legit portals. I think you guys got over-zealous deleting everything that TTH touched. Indeed, nobody disputes that the Caribbean has potential for a portal (we're talking about a region with 100+ individual islands, most of which have pages). The issue primarily seems to be that it’s outdated-- which is completely WP:SURMOUNTABLE. On the other hand, I personally don't have the time nor skill to maintain a portal, nor do I have the time or skill to battle you over this. Perhaps portals are too much work for what they are-- it's just distressing to see them disappear so quickly. --Tiredmeliorist (talk) 22:24, 17 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine

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: No consensus (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Indian cuisine

Built totally off Template:Cuisine of India and Template:Korean cuisine. Adds nothing to the head article. Just a fork of the template. Not picked up in the bulk deletion noms for some reason but the same issues exactly as a whole series of Country Cuisine pages by TTH. Legacypac (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominated, because the basis of the nomination is demonstarbly false. @Legacypac, the reason why these were not picked up in the bulk deletion noms is clear from a very simple examination of the wikicode: neither of them is based on a single navbox.

This fact can also be noted without even opening the edit window by observing that neither of them is in the tracking category Category:Automated portals with article list built solely from one template ... and Portal:Indian cuisine is Category:Automated portals with article list built solely from two templates.

The "selected articles" list for these two portals is as follows:

I think that it may be possible for each these portals to be made redundant by reorganising the use and/or structure of the navboxes. However, the nomination is reckless and ill-considered. I have already posted at User talk:Legacypac#Flooding_MFD asking them to stop flooding MFD with such a huge number of MFDs, and this completely false nomination is evidence that Legacypac is working too fast, with too little care.

Please withdraw this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No this is not the place to lambaste me for trying my best to explain which variation of bad idea was used to make these mass produced pages. It took me several hours to find, analyize and write up the'nominations here. We have at least a week, and often much longer due to backlogs, to work through each nomination. There is no panic to reverse the effort I expended to do these MFDs. What difference would it be if they were posted tomorrow or the next day?

We are dealing with thousands of error filled error generating pages and the effort to explain the problems on each far outweighs the time that went into creation.

For example, why are there two templates for Indian Cuisine and Cuisine of India? That makes no sense. You need to really look carefully at the code to pick that out.

Yes the Korean one is also calling on a list page but it is built on one template as I stated. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. @Legacypac, you're missing the point. Your nomination is based on two assertions:

That each portal Adds nothing to the head article. This is not true. In both cases, the head article transcludes neither of the pages on which the portal is built.
That each of these portals is a fork of the template. Again that is simply untrue. Each of these portals combines two separate lists.

I agree entirely that you need to really look carefully at the code. That is precisely my point: you were working with too much haste and too little care, so you wholly misread the nature of these portals.

Many hunrdeds of spam portals are being deleted through proper scrutiny. Over 1400 were deleted by consensus yesterday alone. There is absolutely no need to rush the process and make mistakes.

I assume that your error was made in good faith. So rather than complaining that the fatal flaw in your nomination has been identified, please demonstrate that good faith by having the good grace to simply acknowledge that you are a human who made a human error (as we all do from time to time), and that you got this one wrong ... and withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per BHG above. No prejudice against later renomination based upon other variables, such as portal guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian portal transludes the first bit of Indian cuisine which is a vastly better way to explore the topic. Ditto for the Korean page. These portals are just a distraction, a waystation for the reader looking for real content in mainspace. Therefore they fail POG. They are also slight variations and no better in structure then the other regional food portals that have been deleted or are nominated for deletion as follows: Portal:Albanian cuisine • Portal:American cuisine • Portal:Arab cuisine • Portal:Aragonese cuisine • Portal:Argentine cuisine • Portal:Armenian cuisine • Portal:Azerbaijani cuisine • Portal:Barbadian cuisine • Portal:Beijing cuisine • Portal:Brazilian cuisine • Portal:British cuisine • Portal:Bruneian cuisine • Portal:Burmese cuisine • Portal:Canadian cuisine • Portal:Cantonese cuisine • Portal:Chinese cuisine • Portal:Cypriot cuisine • Portal:Egyptian cuisine • Portal:English cuisine • Portal:Fujian cuisine • Portal:Galician cuisine • Portal:Georgian cuisine • Portal:Greek cuisine • Portal:Hong Kong cuisine • Portal:Indian cuisine • Portal:Indonesian cuisine • Portal:Iranian cuisine • Portal:Israeli cuisine • Portal:Italian cuisine • Portal:Japanese cuisine • Portal:Korean cuisine • Portal:Lao cuisine • Portal:Levantine cuisine • Portal:Macanese cuisine • Portal:Macedonian cuisine • Portal:Mexican cuisine • Portal:Moroccan cuisine • Portal:New England cuisine • Portal:Pakistani cuisine • Portal:Shanghai cuisine • Portal:Sichuan cuisine • Portal:South African cuisine • Portal:Taiwanese cuisine • Portal:Tunisian cuisine • Portal:Yunnan cuisine Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A country portal is enough to contemplate all the subtopics that may exist regarding it. I think sub portals about countries (Portal:cuisine of "country" , military of "country", economy of "country") are unnecessary and does not meet WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Procedural Close~~ - I am ready to accept the word of User:BrownHairedGirl that this nomination is flawed ~~rather than trying to research it while the nomination is still in contention~~. I agree that these portals fail POG, and will note that the portal platoon only cares about POG when they can reasonably claim that it favors them. However, as long as there are valid concerns about the nomination, we have enough nominations for now and can wait on these. User:Legacypac - Do you really have to behave like the portal platoon in making a very large number of nominations rapidly and then arguing to bypass regular order? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Portal:Korean cuisine is an automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-09-17 10:00:13 by User:TTH. And therefore, this portal is not so different from the deleted Portal:Sichuan cuisine. But there is nevertheless a slight difference. Here, the Selected general articles are obtained from {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Template:Korean cuisine | List of Korean dishes}}. And thus we have a non totally evanescent trace of an editorial decision: assembling two sources for building the selection of articles. So, we can wait a little for the policy to clarify. But to be clear, if someone comes forward and says: I will maintain a portal about Portal:Sichuan cuisine, with 30+ pictures, 30+articles, etc. my !vote will be You are welcome, Sichuan cuisine is so nice ! Pldx1 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However they are built, these portals do not meet the breedth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UnitedStatesian. This is a good time to invoke ignore all rules. The nomination may have been incorrect insofar as the reasons for this not being bundled into the others, but none of the users who are arguing for a procedural closure are really contending that this fails WP:POG, because if that was the rationale for deletion, they would !vote for deletion. Either way, if this gets closed as "no consensus", renominate based on that and it'll pass. SITH (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will reword my admonition above that was originally to Legacypac asking him not to behave like the portal platoon. I will instead urge the advocates of portals not to behave like Legacypac. Don't insult any friendly administrators, like User:Northamerica1000 or User:Thryduulf. You can see what the risk is. For that matter, don't insult reasonable non-administrators who are trying to agree with you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: Nobody should be insulting anybody, and nobody should be basing their !vote in a deletion discussion on the person who created and/or nominated the page(s) in question. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both topics are sufficiently broad to have portals. The nomination seems to be concerned with the content of the portals, which can of course be improved through editing. The deletion policy is clear: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.. Waggers TALK 14:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waggers.—N Ø 16:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The idea that automated portals will be improved by editing is just silly. It is also silly to argue that a topic will attract large numbers of viewers and portal maintainers simply because it appears to be a "broad subject area". Many topics that have been said to be "broad subject areas" attract very few portal viewers, and some even attract few readers of the parent article. The viewing of the portals and parent articles in the period of 1 January 2019 - 28 February 2019 was:

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent
Korean cuisine	5	771	154.2		0.65%
Indian cuisine	17	1,579	92.9		1.08%

In each case, the portal had approximately 1% of the viewers of the parent article, and neither portal had as many as 20 pageviews a day. If a portal is not attracting viewers, there is likewise no reason to think that it will attract portal maintainers. An unmaintained, purely automated portal provides no functionality that is not already present in the combination of two pages, either a template and a list article, or two duplicative templates. These portals should be deleted, without prejudice to the future creation of curated portals based on future portal guidelines, but metrics have shown that portals only rarely generate the demand that will justify the labor-intensive effort of maintaining miniature Main Pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear User:Waggers. Saying both topics are sufficiently broad to have portals seems slightly misleading. This is tweaking " Both topics are sufficiently broad to deserve portals", with what appears as a pretense to assert that Portal:Korean cuisine is a portal instead of should have been a portal. What the reader is faced with is a fake portal, that navigates into nothing. A single example: Traditional Korean meals are named for the number of side dishes that accompany steam-cooked short-grain rice. What a great sentence! Therefore galbi is the number of side dishes that accompany a 갈비구이, while the reason why number 4 is associated with 탕평채 remains left to the reader as an exercise. <hint> there is a reason for this shameful "named", related to a lack of maintenance </hint>. Why would the keep !voters spent any part of their precious time to maintain an abandoned thing that only attracts five views per day ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is easy to argue a priori that these portals are "broad subject areas" that will attract readers and portal maintainers, but whether areas will attract readers and maintainers is not a priori knowledge. We have seen a posteriori that these portals do not attract readers and portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 26 May 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.

April 14, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Halo (2nd nomination)

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: No Consensus. - jc37 22:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Halo

Converted portal on a game franchise. Too narrow scope product portal. Article handles this better. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this certainly looks different from when I created it. feminist (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single game is too narrow scope for a portal, provided no additional navigational functionality over the main article. Meszzy² (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to take a look at the last version before it was touched by The Transhumanist. feminist (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, vandalism. TTH and his merry crew did a huge disservice to anyone who thought there was a use for portals [43] The old version actually highlighted featured content. You might want to have adiscussion with TTH about what he did to your work. Legacypac (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Legacypac, No. Read Yelling Vandalism. Stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia are not vandalism. They are stupid good-faith edits that have a negative effect on the quality of the encyclopedia. If you have been editing long enough to what vandalism is, and you have, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This used to be a featured portal, which means that its scope is wide enough to encompass a significant number of articles. And it's not a single game, it's a whole franchise that has spawned other topics. feminist (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete. Portals that are rarely used should die, and I don't want to waste anyone's time. feminist (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might not want to give up so readily Feminist; looking at the hits (see the thread at the portal project talk page) it was #253 out of all portals (excluding portal contents &c) during the period that BrownHairedGirl queried.[44] Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That appears (to me at least) to be more of an argument to delete all but the most viewed portals, rather than keeping them. feminist (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Espresso Addict & feminist, I am v sorry: I screwed up somehow in posting the link at WT:WPPORT. The one I posted gave recent hits, not the Jan–Feb figures I had been viewing. I have fixed the link on WT:WPPORT: [45]. I chose the Jan–Feb figures, because they were before the views began to be distorted by all the attention from editors at MFD etc.

As you can see in the corrected list, Portal:Halo is ranked #951 out of 1507 pages. Here is the direct link to the Jan–Feb figures for Halo alone[46]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The numbers did in some cases look very strange! Sorry, Feminist! (Unfortunately I've been commenting on a number of active MfDs, all of which have the same fatal flaw...) Espresso Addict (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, @Espresso Addict. I'll follow you around and repeat my grovelling apology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, everyone makes mistakes. I self-reverted in the other MfDs, as I think this was the only place where anyone had responded, luckily. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not part of the recently created automated batch. A Featured Portal before the changeover. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Old portal, 73 subpages, created 2015-10-31 03:16:32 by User:Feminist. If you, User:Feminist, want to replace the actual portal's page by its before the TTH mess version, then my opinion is: feel free to do that, provided that you (1) keep the {{mfdx|2nd|help=off}} tag, and fill all the {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} fields. In this case, I will comment as Keep at this time. The "not sufficiently broad scope" concern will remain nevertheless, but we are now and not in a possible future. Pldx1 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improvements suggested by @Pldx1: are initiated. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep former featured portal. (Looks like the last ever passed by the process.) Should be restored to the featured version. While the topic is relatively limited, if Feminist (or anyone else) is prepared to restore & maintain it, there seems no rationale to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~::ETA: This actually gets surprisingly decent hits, as I wrote above: #253 of all portals (excl. portal contents &c). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - By WP:POG portals should be panes for a vast content. Portals for single game fail in WP:POG. The vast majority of portals do not receive actual content for years, in this case about four years (See Portal:Halo/Selected article/14 and Portal:Halo/DYK/53 Revision history). Fan-created, after abandoned, do not arouse community interest. Single game portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree, 307 pageviews (30 days) for Portal:Halo compared to 81,813 pageviews (30 days) for Halo (franchise) also demonstrates that readers do not see sense in exploring a "single game portal" that shows the same content of article.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with the understanding that it may be renominated within 60 days if it has not been returned to its former state before it was broken by the portal platoon. This is also evidence that they should be topic-banned permanently from modifying or creating portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This (in either form) is one of the better maintained portals (it's not showing redlinks, Lua errors etc), but it isn't for a broad topic, (as pointed out above) gets few pageviews compared with the corresponding article and contains things that are, at best, pointless on such a portal (e.g. links to Wikispecies/Wikiversity). Portals should be limited to just broad topics (e.g. video games?) to limit the damage they do to wp - e.g. editor time spent on portals (that few readers will ever look at), noise affecting other editors and the risk of readers seeing poorly-maintained portals. In other words, I think the benefits (if there are any - who might actually use a portal?) of keeping a portal about a topic like this are outweighed by its costs (e.g. encouraging other editors to spend time creating a portal for their favorite VG and quite possibly leaving it a mess). Note re benefits: I've yet to see a convincing explanation of how portals might help readers/editors - just words like "the portal helps you survey additional information on the topic". DexDor^(talk) 20:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this former featured portal and revert to this pre-automated version. Meets WP:POG. This would require the undeletion of Portal:Halo/Intro, which was deleted per WP:G6 after the portal was unfortunately converted to automated format. The undeletion shouldn't be a problem. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A maintainer is someone who maintains. Reverting would require nothing, since using

{{Transclude lead excerpt | Halo (franchise) | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1}}

instead of

{{/box-header|<big>The [[File:Halo (series) logo.svg|120px|alt=Halo]] Portal</big>|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Intro|}}

{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Intro}}

would obviously produce the required intro. I am surprised that this has not already been done, and that {{Portal maintenance status|date=June 2018}} remains unchanged. Pldx1 (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert. Featured portal with sufficient content. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single game franchise falls far short of the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. More than adequately covered by Portal:Video games. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Narrow scope, which fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not been maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the creator has voted delete here. Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, my vote doesn't carry any more weight than that of others, when there is no clear consensus for deletion. feminist (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact it was previously a featured portal indicates it has sufficient scope for a portal to exist. The rest is a content discussion not a deletion discussion. Waggers TALK 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert Just because it is a single game franchise doesn't mean it fails WP:POG. This portal has the content and in its previous version was a better portal. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:04, 8 May 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.

April 13, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Western Sahara

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: no consensus. From the discussion, it seems like some maintenance/expansion work has been done on the portal(s) in question, thus addressing the maintenance-based concerns. On the other hand, the NPOV issues have been only inconclusively discussed - perhaps with a slight lean towards "can be resolved without deletion" as argued by Thryduulf, koavf and Northamerica1000 - and whether the width-of-topic criterium on WP:POG is met by these portals appears to be an open question (that guideline does not go into much detail about when a topic is broad enough) with arguments on both sides. My sense is that this isn't a consensus for deletion but I wouldn't comfortably call it a consensus for keeping either, although it seems to lean into that direction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Western Sahara

This portal is a POV problem. While titled Western Sahara the into is about the SADR. The article Western Sahara takes a much different tactic in dealing with this disputed region. I believe disputed areas are best handled in articles where there are more editors, references, and discussion over scope and name of pages - all things lacking in portal space. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there's "too much" SADR info, then add some non-SADR info. Simple solution. Portals are allowed to be about people groups and regions, even occupied ones (e.g. Portal:Palestine). The solution here is to make a better portal, not delete it. Do you have anything to add? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This portal is about the area of land called Western Sahara, and yet in the portal the lead of the Western Sahara article is pushed below the lead of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article, a partial state only controlling 20% of Western Sahara. The selected biography is also of the first president of the SADR. Clearly it has a POV issue - and it's problems can further be seen by a read through the portals talk page. The solution is also not to add some non-SADR info as this isn't a portal for SADR, or a portal for Morocco, its a portal for Western Sahara. However, putting the POV issues aside for now and looking more at the portal itself - WP:POG requires portals to be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Western Sahara already has a navbox which seems to contain all Western Sahara content just fine, so it doesn't seem to be a broad subject area in need of a portal to provide additional navigational help. Next, the portal receives about 10 views a day, while the main article receives about 2000 views a day. That's 200 times more showing that this portal does not attract a large number of interested readers. We can also see from the ongoing discussion of the Stamford portal that the consensus appears to be heading for deletion for a portal with its main article only having fifty times the readership. Finally, I think the fact that the POV problems have not been fixed over years and years of this portals existence prove that it also does not attract a large enough number of portal maintainers. A portal is also not a mainspace article - if it's obviously a bad quality portal, there's no need to keep it and fix it, it can be deleted as portals do not contain content and only serve as an optional navigational aid. Meszzy² (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first portal with meaningful discussion on the talkpage and oddly the discussion supports a delete here. Legacypac (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2005-12-31 02:06:24 by User:Koavf. Having a not maintained portal about a controversial topic is a surely no. The DYK, Selected Biographies and Selected Pictures last modif are 12 September 2010‎. The Selected Biographies contains exactly ONE biography and the Selected Pictures contains TWO of them. Saying the solution here is to make a better portal is only a joke: DO IT YOURSELF or keep silent. Pldx1 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pldx1: Very rude of you. I just updated two subpages easily and quickly, so surely you'll be changing your vote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are encouraged to check the history of this page. I've added a redirect/sometimes page name used here for the convinience of the admin closing this. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all editors are very much encouraged to take a look at User:Wikima and User:Daryou's edits, too. That would be fun. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I encourage all editors to look at the history of the page. Portals should not be about controversial topics - this has been well established in various MFDs. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: How do you explain Portal:Israel, Portal:Palestine, Portal:Syrian Civil War, Portal:Terrorism, Portal:Cannabis, Portal:Disability, Portal:Discrimination, etc.? Where are you getting this idea that we don't have portals about controversial subjects? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but Israel is a UN country. Palestine should be looked at for possible deletion. SCW is not controversial in the sense everyone agrees there is a war on. I tried to delete Cannabis but was outvoted. I see nothing controversial about the topic of Disability and I've not looked at Discrimination. If you feel a page should be deleted feel free to nominate it here. It's a popular thing to do at MFD. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: You ignored or otherwise didn't understand my question. I'll ask it again and I hope you actually answer instead of deflect with tangents: Where are you getting this idea that we don't have portals about controversial subjects? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me as I'll post a list. There have been a lot of portal mfds recently and only a few were on controversial topics. Off the top of my head Portal:Bill Cosby, Portal:R. Kelly were two. We also deleted an ISIL portal in the last several years. There hae been a few more. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: And those two weren't deleted because they were controversial subjects. So now I'm thinking that you're just making up stuff. Can you point me to any policy or guideline that substantiates your claims or no? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I am familiar with AGF, which is why I am giving you opportunities to explain how you aren't just making up policy ad hoc based on personal preference. E.g. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tamil Eelam (2nd nomination) mentions how it is controversial and unmaintained. I just updated most of this content, including some more neutral language. Again, I'm asking for a policy or guideline and I don't see one. If you know of one, that would be helpful. Otherwise, individual MfDs which are sometimes irrelevant is just as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as you alleged of me before... You said we don't have controversial portals but we obviously do. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand – The topic meets WP:POG in having a sufficient broad scope and per content availability about the topic. I disagree with the notion of a topic having some controversy around it as a rationale to then delete content about the topic. I reverted this portal to the non-automated version on 13 April 2019 (diff) and was planning on expanding it when I have some free time, but it was nominated for deletion shortly thereafter (a little over ten hours later, diff). So, I won't be working on it for now, because it would be counterproductive to work on content that may be subsequently deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Northamerica1000. Due to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, no one can compulse you to click on this blue link and read again what the WP:NOTCOMPULSORY policy says exactly. But you should nevertheless, this is only two lines long. This will inform you that your !vote cannot be taken into account. Nobody, even you, can compulse anyone to expand anything. If you want to expand this portal by yourself, then please do ! Otherwise, your only choice is keep it, in this pitiful state, and knowing that nobody cares. Pldx1 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that others are compelled to do work here (other than the person proposing the deletion, which would oblige an admin to do that work). Since he was in the middle of expanding it when the deletion proposal was made and clearly says that he himself is interested in working on it, you are off base both about this compulsory thing and no one caring. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the history does not show where anyone was expanding this page just before MfD. Also I never said we don't have portals on controversial areas, I said we have been deleting portals on controversial or sensitive areas. The topic of this portal remains vsry unclear. Is it about the Free Zone, the Morrocan controlled area, both, the former colony, the government of the free zone or what? Please clarify. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legacypac: "Portals should not be about controversial topics" but "I never said we don't have portals on controversial areas". How do you reconcile those two...? Especially since we do have portals about controversial subjects and you have no policy or guideline to support this claim? In the edit history, Northamerica1000 changed it to a manual category a few hours before you suggested MfD: this is certainly consistent with him working on it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope the categorization is just part of a project to categorize hundreds of remaining portals. Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but with the understanding that this portal, if kept, may be renominated within 60 days to see whether improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an interesting experiment around "will people saying expand will really do expand ?". Now, two days after my initial comment, the portal encompasses ONE bibliography (a singer) instead of 1, ONE article instead of 1 and a great total of FIVE pictures, instead of 2, when the eponymous article encompasses 19 of them. One can note that the only thing that File:Posten_der_Frente_Polisario.jpg illustrates is that at least one UN pick-up is white with blue UN letters on it. What a great expansion ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Could have sworn that the complaint before was that the content wasn't new and refreshed but now the problem is that there are only five pictures in a gallery instead of 22. Where will the goalposts move next, User:Pldx1? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: you are saying this portal is maintained, I am only checking. Since the article has 19 images, it wouldn't have been difficult to have more than 5 images in the portal. Another problem: File:El Aaiún-Laâyoune Collage.png is a collage, but ~~there are~~ I have seen no copyright assertions for any of the 5 pieces of this collage. More details would be great. Pldx1 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: I recommend you look again at Commons because you are mistaken. Additionally, that is irrelevant to keeping this portal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected there are into I have seen. By the way, commons:Category:Western_Sahara lists a very large series of pictures. Having used only 5 of them in 14 years (and moreover without any editorial comment) says many things. This portal simply doesn't exist for real. Pldx1 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How will this portal be made into something better and more informative than Western Sahara? If it can be made better, why not upgrade the mainspace page instead? How will you resolve the unclear topic issues here? Legacypac (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: The same way that Portal:France is not the same as France? Why would this be a particular case? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is open since 7 days. Have we seen any real attempt to maintain this portal during this laps of time ? Remember that a portal is supposed to be an efficient navigation tool, and what we have for now helps nobody to navigate anywhere. Pldx1 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pldx1: The last person who made a radical change to it felt discouraged since it was marked MfD hours later. I have since made several demonstrable improvements. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I may improve this if it is retained. Again, it would be counterproductive to expand a portal that may be subsequently deleted. That would be a waste of my time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of these disputed geographic regions meets the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @UnitedStatesian: Neither? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Portal:Western Sahara nor Portal:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @UnitedStatesian: I have no idea what in the world you're talking about. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination is concerned with content, not anything existential. Policy says disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. This isn't a severe case. Waggers TALK 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't a severe case = How amusing. This MfD was launched 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC). And now, this portal continue to only contains ONE snippet of an article and ONE snippet of a biography. But This isn't a severe case. Let us imagine a portal with a negative number of snippets. Be sure that "this wouldn't be a severe case". What could be sufficiently severe to sever a portal ? Pldx1 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the portal is retained, perhaps you can consider volunteering some of your time to expand the portal? After all, since you're so concerned about its state, why not perform some work to improve it? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Northamerica1000. When you !vote keep, I respectfully disagree. When you imply "I surely will not spend my precious time here", I simply trust your judgment, and will do the same. I also trust User:Koavf. If there was much to add to this ~~portal~~ draft, he would already have. Pldx1 (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC). Using the word "portal" here was only a lapsus calami. Pldx1 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty to add about Sahrawi tribes, the political status, etc. Why would we have portals on some states but not on others? This is just classic information architecture. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because some users are trying to write some articles about some countries, instead of simply saying there is plenty to add. Pldx1 (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not seeing any justification for deletion here - the arguments for it seem to be simultaneously (all paraphrased) "there ins't enough content", and "there is too much (controversial) content" - which is it? There is nothing in any policy or guideline that says disputed areas and/or other (potentially) controversial topics cannot or should not have portals, so that's not a reason to delete either. Then we get to "it's not maintained, there's irrelevant content there" and "there is less content now maintenance was done" - yes, removing irrelevant content will reduce the total amount of content - which do you want? The portal can be improved without deletion, and at least one editor has said they're interested in doing the work, but not if that work is going to be deleted, so again deletion would be counter productive. Even if nobody does do any work on this, there is no deadline so if nothing has changed in six months or so just nominate it again (preferably without self-contradictory rationales). Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear User:Thryduulf. Perhaps you should try reading harder. What are you not seeing in the sentence: this so-called portal only contains ONE snippet of an article and ONE snippet of a biography? What are you not seeing in the sentence: This MfD was launched 20:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC). And now, one month later, nothing has changed ? What we have before us is a shameful draft that, from it's creation 2005-12-31 till now, has never(*) involved more than TWO articles in supplement of the main article. (* except during its conversion by TTH into the fork of a navbox, now reverted). This has never ever been a portal in any meaning of the term.

What are you not seeing in

{\displaystyle 2\ll 20}

? Pldx1 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing exactly what multiple other editors have explained to you already multiple times: There is plenty of content available to be put into the portal - this is a problem with a solution requiring editing not deletion. This editing has not happened because those who have expressed an interest in doing so are not interested in putting in the effort only to see their hard work deleted so they are waiting for this nomination to be closed before starting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulties with explaining the emptiness of this draft by this editing has not happened because those who have expressed an interest [are afraid by this MfD]: the emptiness is 14 years old, the MfD is one month old. I have also difficulties with so they are waiting for this nomination to be closed before starting. Are you implying: "they will start as soon as the MfD is closed" or are you simply saying: "they will find another rationale to wait as soon as the MfD is closed"? Pldx1 (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike you I am prepared to assume good faith of those expressing an interest in working on things going forwards. I was not aware this portal existed prior to seeing this MfD, the same might be true of those prepared to work on it now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no ! I am assuming good faith from everyone. For a first eason: this is our policy, here. And for a second reason: doing otherwise would force me to invent a conspiracy theory that would explain everything. But I am unable to invent anything covering the tea ceremony. Pldx1 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pldx1, the fact that you are ignorant that there are Arab tea ceremonies does not justify deleting this portal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Koavf. Perhaps, you should look at Portal:Western Sahara/Selected pictures/10. Here, you simply give the impression that you have not checked the captions of the pictures used in this portal. Pldx1 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't resort to cheap jokes and tactics, Pldx1, especially when they're not even accurate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is now 10 pictures instead of 6 before !!! Picture06 is now File:Aislamiento_Isolation.jpg. Its caption in the portal is A Sahrawi protesting Moroccan occupation. At Commons, the description of this picture is Isidro López-Aparicio performing the piece: isolation in the Western Sahara desert (Tifariti), denouncing the isolation suffered by the Saharawi people in the refugee camps of Tindouf since 1975, picture by Isidro López-Aparicio. While es:Isidro_López-Aparicio tells us that: Isidro López-Aparicio ( Santisteban del Puerto , Jaén , 1967) is an artist, university professor and Andalusian curator. His artistic work is developed in the fields of plastic and visual arts, installation and action art. He is a doctor in Fine Arts, he works as a professor at the University of Granada , where he is the director of the research group of the SIDO "Creation, Edition and Conservation of the Image". No comment seems required, except from: ever improving! Pldx1 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Please see WP:POINT. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More selected articles have been added to the portal. Hopefully it's retained, so it can be further expanded. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More selected pictures have been added to the portal, and a couple more DYK entries that were found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much credit to Koavf and Northamerica1000 for their contributions. This is clearly a functional, well-made, and presently-maintained portal. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, I've decided to add a few more selected articles to the portal. More work is yet to be done, and any assistance would be much appreciated, but - considering just how slowly this deletion nomination has been going - I think we can reasonably expect that fixing it won't take nearly as long as deleting it. My recommendations are as follows:
1) a few more selected articles, as those are the most important part of any portal

2) a few more selected biographies; despite not being required, they're helpful

3) maybe 5 more pictures

4) lastly, expand on any miscellaneous components, maybe replace the "quotes" section with something more useful.

5) this portal is stylistically above-average, but any possible design tweaks to make it easier on the eyes and smoother to navigate would always be a plus
I'd strongly encourage everyone who's commented thus far to add even one component to the portal, as that alone would be enough to tip the Selected Articles count above the 20 threshold specified at WP:POG. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close and keep It's been six weeks with no clear consensus to delete and multiple editors involved in maintaining and upgrading the portal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 23 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Harz Mountains

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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Harz Mountains

Too fine grained portal. Portal:Lower Saxony already exists. These were copied from German Wikipedia where readers are more likely to be interested in maintaining portals on unofficial regions of Germany. In English, these are not being well maintained and do not attract readers. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That is purely speculation and you are only using 2 criteria, one of which does not apply here: this portal does not need a lot of maintenance since it is pretty well complete. Secondly your view how attractive it is to readers is subjective and, in any case, only one of several reasons for having a portal.

You should not really be picking off individual portals for deletion (save those that were mass-created by TTH) based on your own WP:POV when you well know that the community voted a while back to 'keep' portals in principle and there are ongoing debates about the standards and criteria to be applied. Please withdraw this MFD until there is consensus on the standard required for portals. Bermicourt (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POG and the broad deletion of third level (and some second level) administrative divisions of countries. Claims that all portals should be kept based on WP:ENDPORTALS or some time to develop criteria (which no one has put to an RFC) are no longer, if ever, relevant. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an Aunt Sally argument; it undermines your already weak case; I've never claimed all portals should be kept. Please withdraw this ~~back door~~ deletion request ~~which is not even in the right place.~~Bermicourt (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MFD is the correct forum for portal deletion discussions. Look at the archives linked from the top of the current discussions for March and April to get an idea of the pages being deleted here. Legacypac (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. I now see that MFD is effectively also PFD. I've deleted the offending text above.

Comment - Maintained, 0 subpages, ---------- created 2009-10-15 21:10:26 by User:Bermicourt, maintained by User:Bermicourt : Portal:Harz Mountains. Pldx1 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maintained, nice selection of good red links. Also refreshing to see a portal that is not the standard substitution of a boring template. —Kusma (t·c) 10:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this portal. The corresponding article, Harz, is not even a level 5 Vital article, meaning it is not in the top 50,000 most important articles on Wikipedia. There is no evidence whatsoever that the community has formed a consensus that there in any value a portal on any subject this narrow, nor any pageview evidence that readers value this Portal over the corresponding article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - In better shape than most portals. The "nice selection of good red links" shows the possibility of expansion, but almost every portal can be expanded, but also the failure to expand. The following notes apply:
- - If kept, should be available for renomination in 60 days.
  - Portals should so be picked off for deletion discussion, which only results in deletion if they cannot be justified. The community only voted in principle that there were such things as useful portals, without commenting on any one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of course it's important to keep working on every portal to improve it (as it is with all mainspace articles) if it is to be a useful signpost to article topics and a useful tool for WikiProjects to improve and extend coverage of a topic. The reason there are so many blue links on this portal is that I actively used it to create many of the articles. It enabled me to identify the gaps in coverage and to prioritise my work, creating new articles and extending existing ones. That's one of the major benefits of a portal and one that, in the debate raging to and fro elsewhere, seems to get forgotten about. I've created over 5,000 new articles on Wikipedia and have used portals extensively to shape priorities and achieve balanced coverage of a topic. By contrast, the recent mass of auto-created portals doesn't meet that remit at all and I am a strong supporter of deleting them. They are of limited utility and only do a disservice to other, decently created and maintained portals, which are earning their pay. Of course, there's always more to do, but we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Bermicourt (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the "not well maintained" argument is obviously false, atleast for this specific well-organized portal. Also, English Wikipedia strives to be a encyclopedia with a global perspective, so it should absolutely contain topics and pages that may only be of interest for a few English-language readers. I do sympathize with the deletion of broken abandoned portals, or of portals that have little chance to be developed into a comprehensive entry point. But this portal includes 300+ links to related articles (rough estimate), so this is a "broad subject area" as required by WP:POG. It's obviously not the largest topic ever, but blindly deleting such minor well-developed portals just out of principle does a disservice to this project. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with the "Articles to be added" section userfied or converted to a wikiproject page if necessary). Portals are supposed to be main pages (i.e. not a place for lists of redlinks) for a broad subject area (which, IMO, should be interpreted as Europe or Germany, but no lower). The lower the topic is the less likely it is that editors will maintain it and any readers will ever use it. It's existence also may encourage other editors to (misguidedly) attempt to create further portals. DexDor^(talk) 15:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you put it yourself, that's simply your WP:POV since no-one's defined or agreed what "broad" means in topic terms. And it is simply untrue that "the lower the topic the less likely editors will maintain it"; I've clearly posted myself as the maintainer of this portal. And you totally fail to mention its efficacy in helping WikiProjects improve and extend coverage. Your final point is beginning to clutch at straws since a) you have already claimed readers are unlikely to view it and b) I'm sure anti-portaleers wouldn't let new portals survive longer than a positron in a crowd of electrons. Bermicourt (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstanding about what portals on the English wp are is clearly shown at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rhön. Please read WP:PORTAL. You may be (at the moment) maintaining this portal, but in general portals for lower level topics are likely to attract fewer editors to maintain them. Why do you think (some) lists of redlinks need to be in (reader-facing) portalspace (rather than in wikiproject pages)? DexDor^(talk) 20:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't misunderstand their use - I've actively used them for some years now, to very good effect. And portalspace is not really reader-facing (in my view it should be, but that's another debate), that's why the hits are so low. They don't appear in searches and are linked from very few articles. That said, you make a good point about project space; if active portals like this are going to be deleted; they should be put into project space so at least the project editors can use them. Bermicourt (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If we are going to have portals, this is how they should be built.

Most portals use a pointless magazines-style bloated format, displaying only one link at a time in a preview format which is pointless now that mouseover on any of the linked list items shows a preview to un-logged-in readers. They are a waste of time.

However, this portal is an excellent navigational tool, with a well-curated list of links under 7 major headings, further divided under sub-headings. It title says that "The portal gives a brief overview of the region as well as acting as a road map for many of the articles about the Harz Mountains in English Wikipedia", and it does that job very well.

The claim of a narrow scope by nominator and DexDor is astonishing. The page has 338 active links article-space links (of which 234 are unique, non-stub pages), plus 19 redlinks to invite readers to become editors. That's plenty broad enough for me.

If the portal project had spent the last year creating pages like this, it would be winning lots of praise, instead of being of pilloried for facilitating a flood of automated spam and wikilawyering against the cleanup.

Congratulations to @Bermicourt for building and maintaining this excellent page ... a WP:TROUT to the nominator not spotting how radically different this to the automated junk and dead magazines which have culled in other MFDs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a sterling portal, a great example of how portals should support ease of navigation. I could quickly and easily find a page on any topic relating to Harz Mountains and that is what's important. Gazamp (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic appears to have sufficiently broad coverage, and this model of portal design warrants further investigation. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I also don't think this should be renominated within 60 days as Robert McClenon suggested. Consensus is pretty clearly on the side of this portal here. However, if a future portal RfC drafts new criteria and this portal does not meet it, then that's clearly another story. Until then though, it should be kept per consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC) Edits: 06:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: effort has clearly been put into this one. It's an example of what a portal should be, in contrast to the drive-by stuff. SITH (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Good quality portal, well maintained and the concept of "breadth of subject matter" is ineherently completely subjective and inevitably influenced by POV. I have not seen it defined anywhere except WP:POG where there was longstanding guidance that a rule of thumb of 20 articles or greater would be required for a Portal. P:HZ clearly exceeds this requirement comfortably, and even satisfies the oft quoted complaint that Portals are poor navigational aids. And low readership numbers is a complete red herring, and not a particularly convincing deletion rationale anyway. WP:NOBODYREADSIT could equally apply to Portals, rather than to Article notability. If only a SMALL percentage of a low number of readers find Portals useful or interesting, they are a success, at least for those readers. We dont delete articles just because of low readership numbers because, with that rationale, it's likely that more than half of Wikipedia content wouldn't exist. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:38, 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.

April 12, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rhön

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: Keep. There seems to be a narrow consensus that this portal should be kept, at least for the time being, because it is actively being maintained. There are concerns that the scope of the topic may not meet the portal requirements, and concerns that the number of redlinks reduce the portal's utility. However, the redlinks can be addressed via normal editing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rhön

Older portal full of redlinks and poor formatting. Limited interest to readers as even the head article only pulled 661 pageviews in the last 30 days. Germany is well covered with English language portals anyway. I believe every German state and many informal regions have a portal already. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This heritage portal, which as Legacypac says is oddly formatted, has a lot of redlinks. It appears that User:Bermicourt isn't maintaining it effectively. The usual comments also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main problem with this portal is that I haven't finished adding the articles to 'blue the links', but I'm now working on that and have already reduced the number of red links considerably. In addition, I'd just make a couple of responses to your interesting points above. First, the age of a portal is not a factor. Second, the formatting is based on that of the German Wikipedia portal but can be changed; feel free to work with me to do that. Third, when the community voted to keep portals, it recognised that their purpose is wider than just user hits - they are a vital tool for maintaining and improving coverage of a topic. Red links give a clear indication of what still needs working on and an and incentive to provide fuller coverage. Obviously we don't want too many; usually there is a sub-page with a fuller list. That said, I agree there are too many red links on this portal, which is why I'm working on reducing them; there are already 20 or so less. Thanks for flagging this up but, don't worry, I'm on it! Bermicourt (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bermicourt, Please don't misrepresent WP:ENDPORTALS. At that RFC, were presented with a single proposal '"Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace".

The community did reject the proposal to delete them all. That's what the closer noted

The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for a cull.

The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for automation of portals, as TTH initiated.

The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for a massive expansion, as TTH initiated.

The closer did not weigh the discussion to gauge support for keeping low-traffic portals as a tool for editors.

We need a further RFC to test some of those points, but please don't cite the RFC as evidence for a question which it wasn't asked.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maintained, 21 subpages, ---------- created 2014-07-04 14:37:29 by User:Bermicourt, maintained by User:Bermicourt : Portal:Rhön. Pldx1 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bermicourt. –Vami♜_IV♠ 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maintained or not, this portal fails the WP:POG guidance that portals should be for "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

I haven't checked the comments above, but if this one has only one maintainer, that's not a good sign wrt POG.

Secondly, it demonstrably fails the requirement that portals should "attract large numbers of interested readers". Here are the January-March daily average viewing figures for the last four years:

2019: 5
2018: 6
2017: 1
2016: 1

(If you click through to see the charts, you will see that the figures are so low that they are noticeably affected by spikes which look arise they may arise from editing.)

So its very clear that this portal doesn't meet POG. Readers don't want it.

I note @Bermicourt's comment that editors use this portal as a tracking page for redlinks (that obviously also accounts for some of the hits, which reinforces my point that pageview numbers this low are significantly distorted by editors' work). That tracking function is obviously an important role, but it doesn't need all the infrastructure of multi-page reader-facing portal. I have often used lists for such tasks, some in userspace, some as mainspace lists, and some in project space; no portals were needed for those sets of up to a few thousand pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BHG you are being a tad disingenuous. You changed the Portal Guidelines yourself to say that portals should cover "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"', knowing it was contentious, and now you're quoting your guideline amendment back as if it is an agreed community rule which clearly it isn't. In fact the guidelines have been amended numerous times by yourself and LegacyPac without achieving community consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blatant lie, @Bermicourt.

I reverted[47] the guideline to its longterm stable text, after a bunch of unilateral changes by the portalspammer @The Transhumanist.

My editsummary reads in full: 'Reverted to revision 718250697 by Tom Morris: Restore 2-year stable version. There is no evidence of broad community consneus to chnage the core guidance "Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", which was removed on 32 May 2018'.

I did not any point add a single word of my own to the portal guidelines.

It is utterly outrageous that you try to rig a deletion discussion by making a false accusation against me of misconduct, based on clearly-described revert of the unilateral rewrite of those guidelines by the now topic-banned portalspammer. Clean up your act, and withdraw that rubbish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of an over-reaction. I'm sorry for misreading your edit, but it's also a lie to suggest I'm "rigging" a deletion discussion. You well know from the reams of pages written at WP:ENDPORTALS that there is no consensus over portal standards and so the guidelines are hardly relevant. That whole area up in the air as you know because we were trying to collaborate on taking that forward. The one thing the community did agree on was to keep portals. That and the fact there are ongoing discussions about what qualifies as a portal means that we should not even be here. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a historical work in progress. Number of readers depends on current news/marketing. It's not likely to interest millions of people right now, but it's useful historical information. Is there a tag/flag for that? -- Outlier59 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, for now - I am not convinced that this portal has a sufficiently broad scope to be kept in the long run. But this one clearly don't belong to the current kill all the un-needed and un-maintained portals campaign. In my opinion, maintained means: someone stepped forward and said he will do the job, at least for a reasonable period of time ... and said that at the portal's head page itself, and not only at some random place. Moreover, the very fact this portal is oddly formatted, i.e. formatted by flesh and blood people rather than by automated templates, looks as a Keep rationale, not the contrary. Pldx1 (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete portals such as this which clearly isn't for a broad topic (approx 0.5% of Germany by area) as they are a net negative (e.g. distracting editors from doing something more productive). A portal isn't needed to track redlinks. DexDor^(talk) 20:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "Keep" I asked "Is there a tag/flag for this [historical work in progress]?" I asked, because, frankly, I don't know. I'm currently looking into 1800s history stuff. Maybe Wikipedia doesn't want to host this sort of stuff. I don't know. That's why I asked if there's a tag/flag for this stuff. -- Outlier59 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep incomplete portals in portal space but you could use draft space. I'd suggest, however, expanding the appropriate German state portal with this content. Pretty much all portals need work so concentrating on higher levels makes more sense. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this portal. The corresponding article, Rhön Mountains, is not even a level 5 Vital article, meaning it is not in the top 50,000 most important articles on Wikipedia. There is no evidence whatsoever that the community has formed a consensus that there in any value a portal on any subject this narrow, nor any pageview evidence that readers value this Portal over the corresponding article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The community has not agreed any standard on what qualifies as wide-enough coverage. That is exactly my point. We are putting the cart before the horse. We should be seeking consensus on guidelines for the creation of new portals, the level of coverage they need to qualify, the standards required of a portal, whether or not they should be maintained by Wiki Projects, and the criteria for deletion. All that's happening here is that we're pre-empting that debate in the hope that we can slide as many deletions through before someone calls a halt. This is simply TTH in reverse. I am not a supporter of the mass creation of portals and have voted to delete both TTH's as well as other auto-portals based on a single navbox. But if you want good, balanced coverage of a topic, properly curated portals are a tremendous aid. The reason there are so many blue links on this portal is that I actively used it to create many of the articles. It enabled me to identify the gaps in coverage and to prioritise my work, creating new articles and extending existing ones. That's one of the major benefits of a portal and one that, in the debate raging to and fro elsewhere, seems to get forgotten about. I've created over 5,000 new articles on Wikipedia and have used portals extensively to shape priorities and achieve balanced coverage of a topic. By contrast, the recent mass of auto-created portals doesn't meet that remit at all and I am a strong supporter of deleting them. They are of limited utility and only do a disservice to other, decently created and maintained portals, which are earning their pay. Of course, there's always more to do, but we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Bermicourt (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a page listing topics (to see which are bluelinks and which are redlinks) then either a userpage (if you are working alone) or a wikiproject page (if collaborating with other editors) would be more suitable than pages that (at least in theory) are reader-facing - e.g. because notes could be added. Some examples: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Missing articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by occupation/Aviators. Thus, redlink tracking does not make portals (specifically) "a tremendous aid".

Another way of looking at it: portals are supposed to be like Wikipedia's main page, but for a specific (broad) topic - how often do you see redlinks on the Main page? Other editors refer to portals as being a showcase for Wikipedia content about a topic; again, that isn't really compatible with the portal page being used to track redlinks.

Re "TTH in reverse" please see the responses to your similar comment at WT:PORT. DexDor^(talk) 20:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't make this stuff up! "Portals are supposed to be like Wikipedia's main page" - you're having a laugh! And when you've created a few thousand articles, you might be qualified to suggest that there are better aids than portals for assisting projects with topic coverage. But since you clearly don't like or use portals - which is okay - please don't lecture those of us who do. Bermicourt (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portals are pages intended to serve as "Main Pages" for specific topics or areas. They are analogous to Wikipedia's Main Page ....

I don't like portals (except perhaps for really broad topics) because of the negative effects they have on readers and other parts of Wikipedia. DexDor^(talk) 05:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now). To be clear, I share many concerns of the "Delete" voters about the portal's odd formatting and a scope that may be too narrow for a full portal. This portal also contains some overly detailed sections like lists of all natural regions and motorways. The level of additional detail for these relatively minor aspects seems a bit excessive and is just distracting from other more vital sub-topics. In short: this portal could use some serious structural and content improvements. On the other hand, pages on Wikipedia are works in progress and this portal is actively maintained. Keep it for now, but I wouldn't be opposed to a re-nomination in a few months or a year. The current deletion efforts would be better focussed on clearly broken and abandoned portals with no chance of revival or development (and on further clarifying portal requirements). GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting that the German Wiki portal on which this was based has a starred rating (= 'good' portal). But that may just be for being informative and not necessarily for its format. Appearance is so subjective.Bermicourt (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – too narrow to meet POG. The quality of a portal may improve over time, but the breadth of the scope of the topic will not. Leviv ich 05:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of scope for a portal, and no policy-based reason for deletion has been put forward as I can see. Note that WP:POG is a best practice content guideline, not a deletion policy. Waggers TALK 15:07, 7 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy

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. Aside from the blanket keeps, some editors advocated for keeping one or two of the portals; however, I find consensus to delete all 25. The stronger arguments focus on the portals not covering broad subjects, lack of readership (pageviews), and lack of maintenance since portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers per WP:POG. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music Portals by Moxy

25 pages

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin - all of these are based on subpages which will also need to be deleted if this closes delete

Single person and band music portals built by User:Moxy. Most he created and a few he built out the portal and the subpages after someone else started the page. Moxy supports deletion of these pages now [48] Many MFDs have found even top singers and bands are not broad enough topics to meet WP:POG.

See also extensive reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#People Portals A-C Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Portal:Elvis Presley and Portal:The Beatles; Delete the rest, including, of course, all of their many, many, many subpages, as not meeting the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. I note that Elvis Presley and The Beatles are Level-3 Vital Articles (i.e., the top 1,000) and have WikiProjects dedicated to them. I focus on the guideline's wording, not a portal's ancestry or maintenance state (unless it is an absolute unsalvageable mess, of course, in which case WP:TNT would apply). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @UnitedStatesian, even Elvis and the Beatles have truly abysmal levels of pageviews. See the figures for January–March 2019:
1. Portal:The Beatles: Daily average=15
2. Portal:Elvis Presley: Daily average=12.
The data is there time and time and again. It repeatedly shows that readers simply do not want this type of navigation for a single narrow topic. The head article is a vastly better navigational hub in most cases, and clearly does the job well enough for readers not to be looking for portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - @BrownHairedGirl: 15 a day? That has to be the busiest portal other than Portal:Current events. I'm serious, is there one that gets more page views than that? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. No prejudice toward nominating separately. Also consider only bundling the newer, automated portals, and omitting the curated ones from this nomination, to perhaps be nominated individually.

Importantly, users may not realize that some portals listed here are curated, instead just assuming that they're all automated. Per WP:PRESERVE, I feel that curated portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Many of these portals are based upon major musicians and bands that have significant content about them available on Wikipedia. Two have already been identified in the opinion of the !vote above as meeting WP:POG.
Bundling for these portals in this manner makes researching each portal individually, on a case-by-case basis, and then providing rationales for each one, extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming. Bundling makes it easy to cast a single !vote for the bunch, but significantly hinders the ability for users to discuss each one individually.
While Moxy may have been the creator, from a spot check, some have been expanded by various other users.

For curated portals, this typically needs to ascertained by viewing the Revision histories of a portal's subpages.
Main portal pages for curated ones often provide no evidence of portal updates, improvements or maintenance, because additions and changes typically occur on subpages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all STOP typing stuff up that insinuates that I said something incorrectly. Your participation around portals is part of the problem not part of the solution. These are very old portals although several have been "upgraded" to the automated design. The nomination clearly says they all have subpages. The guy that built them has said he does not maintain them anymore. Check the talkpages and you will find little evidence anyone else maintains them. Do your own investigation and show us which ones are maintained instead of vaguingly telling everyone we are too dumb to figure things out. Even reading the portals for the live people who are still active you can tell they are out of date forks of mainspace. Also, nothing you typed goes to the core issue that single people/bands do not meet WP:POG and we have deleted nearly every example brought to MFD this year, old style and new style. See [49] Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd sentence of WP:PRESERVE is "Preserve appropriate content.". Portals are a copy of content. No content (i.e. facts about the world outside wp) should be lost from wp by deletion of portal pages. DexDor^(talk) 17:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - 1. These narrow topic portals (biographies, objects, companies, etc.) present exactly the same content as the article. (I have not found a tool that allows me to compare wikilinks (Forward-links), but they are visibly the same). 2. These narrow-topic portals present a relation "(portal pageviews * 100) / article pageviews < 0.1", usually portals with broad topics have this relation "> 0.1", this shows that readers do not use these portals to seek new information about the topic. 3. Purposes of portals#3, Providing bridges between reading and editing. The vast majority of the portals listed fail in this one. 4. These portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree fail in aiding navigation.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A single musician or band fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should cover "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There are now two separate nominations occurring simultaneously at this time for Portal:Celine Dion, both here and at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/People Portals A-C. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. I was working from two totally different lists. At least I don't make duplicate portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these portals

Listing one by one, to be sure

- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-11-25 03:41:45 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Justin Bieber

- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2010-01-05 00:08:28 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Neil Young

- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-01-15 20:58:14 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Pink Floyd

- Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2010-01-09 04:11:10 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Rolling Stones

- Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2010-01-09 04:11:10 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Rolling Stones (was duplicated in the nomination)

- Old portal, 33 subpages, created 2010-01-14 19:49:15 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Michael Jackson

- Old portal, 25 subpages, created 2010-04-04 19:59:22 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Jackson Family

- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2010-01-05 20:40:56 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Shania Twain

- Old portal, 15 subpages, created 2010-04-02 18:08:16 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Frank Zappa

- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2010-06-08 03:18:54 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Avril Lavigne

- Old portal, 18 subpages, created 2010-02-23 22:49:30 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Queen (band)

- Old portal, 18 subpages, created 2010-01-21 05:22:52 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Bob Dylan

- Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2010-02-01 23:14:51 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Supremes

- Old portal, 55 subpages, created 2011-01-04 19:32:35 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Grateful Dead

- Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2010-05-10 17:37:25 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Iron Maiden

- Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2010-01-21 04:06:13 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Kinks

Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

- Old portal, 15 subpages, created 2006-11-01 14:17:51 by User:Metnever. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Rush

- Old portal, 20 subpages, created 2007-12-12 02:17:46 by User:MegX. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Led Zeppelin

- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-05-14 07:06:31 by User:Gabe19. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Janet Jackson

- Old portal, 35 subpages, created 2007-05-07 08:09:39 by User:Janadore. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Aerosmith

- Old portal, 102 subpages, created 2005-12-02 12:28:35 by User:194.80.20.10. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:The Beatles

- Old portal, 333 subpages, created 2007-06-25 17:16:45 by User:Smithcool. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:U2

- Old portal, 40 subpages, created 2007-12-25 15:29:36 by User:Riana. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Elvis Presley

- Old portal, 26 subpages, created 2011-01-05 13:31:42 by User:Tomcat7. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Miles Davis

- Old portal, 16 subpages, created 2011-07-09 10:34:56 by User:Ryoga Godai. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Whitney Houston

- Old portal, 56 subpages, created 2007-02-14 22:37:13 by User:HK51. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:AC/DC

None of these 27 portals are maintained, at least not to the point that someone stepped forward and put her name in the maintainer= item of the maintenance template. All are to be deleted if the situation remains. Moreover, this doesn't preclude the argument about 'no single singer'.

Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, it is against Wikipedia policy for a maintainer to be required. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. And this applies exactly here: if no one wants to maintain any of these portals, then no one else is required to assume the burden of keeping such abandoned remains of the past. And therefore, delete them all is what to be done. Pldx1 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is unfair to make a !vote contingent on a maintainer's comment if only the first editor was notified; accordingly (and only because it seems you are soliciting such a comment) I have put the MfD notice for two of these on two WikiProject talk pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:UnitedStatesian. The WP:NOTCOMPULSORY argument is a double edged sword. When an portal is not maintained to the point that no maintainer1= is provided, this is a fact. When I say that I could change my opinion from Comment to Keep if a maintainer appear, this is another fact. But I can also change my opinion from Comment to Delete if someone really try hard to compulse me to do my homework. From [xtools Portal:Bob Dylan], we have:

#	User	Edits	min	maj	from	to	bytes
2	Moxy	11	9	2	2010-01-21 05:22	2011-01-05 06:09	1824
1	The Transhumanist	12	0	12	2018-04-11 11:16	2019-02-06 11:32	785
4	Dreamy Jazz	3	2	1	2018-05-25 21:25	2018-07-15 20:45	340
3	Northamerica1000	5	0	5	2011-11-19 21:43	2011-11-19 21:47	169
9	Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars	1	0	1	2019-01-12 02:26	2019-01-12 02:26	58
8	Legacypac	1	0	1	2019-04-12 13:04	2019-04-12 13:04	29
15	Bserin	1	0	1	2010-10-05 08:45	2010-10-05 08:45	25
13	Tadiranscopus	1	0	1	2011-12-27 12:10	2011-12-27 12:10	25
6	JLJ001	1	1	0	2018-05-27 21:58	2018-05-27 21:58	22
11	WOSlinker	1	0	1	2015-02-28 21:27	2015-02-28 21:27	6
7	Koavf	1	1	0	2010-09-01 02:56	2010-09-01 02:56	0
14	Bearcat	1	0	1	2011-12-06 11:09	2011-12-06 11:09	0
12	Sardanaphalus	1	0	1	2014-07-12 00:09	2014-07-12 00:09	0
10	Regi-Iris Stefanelli	1	0	1	2016-10-17 13:34	2016-10-17 13:34	0
5	Timrollpickering	1	1	0	2018-10-24 18:27	2018-10-24 18:27	0

Since I don't think that changing −- <center>{{Purgepage}}</center> -- into -- {{center|{{purgepage}}}} -- is really a major contribution, then all the people that could deserve a notification have already been advised. Moreover, A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day had the subliminal meaning: don't say keep, unless you step forward and become one of the maintainer of one of these un-maintained and un-visited portals. Pldx1 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal Bob Dylan as un-maintained and un-visited portal. With no prejudice toward the "too narrow topic" argument. Pldx1 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice chart. We know TTH's and Dreamy Jazz edits are almost always mass passes across hundreds or thousands of portals the meaningful edits are all from Moxy. Moxy suggested we delete these pages and specifically says he is not maintaining them. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Main article for each musician or band is a better place to provide links to other relevant articles. Page view statistics indicate that users do not find these portals useful (or know they exist). Creator supports their deletion. Oska (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep All - Enough of a mess already. This train is heading to limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all without prejudice to smaller, focused nominations based on the content available for the portals. The portals listed here are hugely different in both scope and history meaning this nomination was always going to be the trainwreck it is. The user who created the portals is entirely irrelevant to nearly every reason why a portal should be kept or deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, it has been well-established that nobody visits these pages. 15 page views/day is not worth the time it takes to maintain these pages. We have an encyclopedia to build. Leviv ich 05:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been well established that community consensus is that portals form part of the encyclopaedia. 15 views a days is significantly more views than some articles get - as just one example Gounou Gaya averages just 2 views per day. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an article such as Gounou Gaya is deleted that would probably remove encyclopedic (and referenced) information from the encyclopedia. That page is also linked from within the text of other articles (e.g. Nassour Guelendouksia Ouaido). Portal pages are usually a copy of the referenced content. DexDor^(talk) 19:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete all. – Levivich 03:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator is now under a ban. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: yes, this nomination is a bit messy. However, an individual musician does not satisfy the criterion of a "broad subject area". If they were all nominated in separate bundles, they'd all get deleted. SITH (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was heavily involved in the Bob Dylan Project a few years ago and upon returning recently, I learned Dylan's Portal may be deleted. I find this disappointing and may not be alone: I checked the history and found there were well over 1,000 views this past month, so it's not dormant in that sense. I understand there may be a problem with maintenance, and I'm willing to help in any way I can, short of higher end admin tasks. Also, I'm not sure what the issue is regarding the "scope" of portals tied to biographies, but it should be noted that hundreds of articles are associated with Dylan and that the main article is so extensive it falls short of being a central destination. Therein lies one of the problems: access. The main link to the Portal is buried under See Also, 18,000 words from the top, and the link above the "sister" articles is even more obscure. Better, I think, to provide a link somewhere else: at the top, in the infobox, in the Contents. Just suggesting. Allreet (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear User:Allreet, I haven't any doubt you were heavily involved in the WikiProject Bob Dylan ... some times ago. It remains that you never edited this specific Portal:Bob Dylan (see the analysis published just above), while the page views are not what you are saying: [wmflabs] attests 15 views per day, to be compared with 1,052 views per day for the Bob_Dylan_discography and 9,157 views per day for the Bob Dylan article itself. When TTH took, circa May 2018, the editorial decision to nuke the abandoned manual version of this portal then exactly nobody emitted a protest, and this for an obvious reason. Reverting to this abandoned version, with TWO articles, TWO songs and TWO pictures would only be a joke against our readers. Pldx1 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For page views, I used https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Portal:Bob_Dylan which as of today yields 52 per day (1,086 in 20 days). This tool yields similar results for the other two pages you mentioned, so on that count, I'm a bit mystified as to the difference. In any case, I was trying to be helpful and was offering a comment objectively and I thought in good faith...and so I get your points, just not the tone. Allreet (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Allreet. Thanks for publishing the request you used. When extending the observation period into [All the 90 last days], one can see the influence of the present MfD on the pageviews. As a result, you were totally right when not editing this portal that nobody looks at. Pldx1 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice regarding individual nominations. Many of these certainly have sufficient scope to have portal in their own right. Other comments concerning the content of these portals are by definition content discussions not deletion discussions. WP:DEL-CONTENT is pretty clear in that regard. WaggersTALK 15:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- 21 of these 25 are manual portals with subpages, which require ongoing maintenance. The other four ( P:Shania Twain, P:Avril Lavigne, P:The Supremes, P:Grateful Dead) have been converted to automated portals using the deprecated technique of drawing their article list from a single navbox, and should be reverted to a curated format.

WP:POG specifically warns that "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.".

But I have just checked each of these 25 portals, and not one of them has a current maintainer. Even in the 30 days that this nomination has been open, no maintainer has come forward for any of them ... even though these portals have all been prominently tagged with a deletion notice, and the relevant WikiProjects have been alerted through the alerts system.

So preserving these portals would be just preserving a set of rotting WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.

And WP:DEL-CONTENT doesn't apply, because it is all about content, whereas portals are just summarised content forks; the actual content remains in the articles.

But if Waggers does want to apply WP:DEL-CONTENT, he should read the first line "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". And we have an answer to that "if": editing cannot improve these pages, because editing requires an editor, and nobody has volunteered to do it.

And there is also WP:DEL-REASON #5: Content forks. If, as Waggers claims, these collections of subpages are actual content, then they are content forks, and can be deleted as such.

So there are both specific-guideline and broad policy reasons for deletion, and their creator is happy for them all to be deleted[50]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please close. It seems to me that there is a clear consensus here to delete all except Portal:Bob Dylan, Portal:Elvis Presley and Portal:The Beatles, and that those 3 would benefit from separate discussion. I will leave a note at WP:ANRFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which discussion you're reading, but I don't see a clear consensus for anything either as a group or individually here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thryduulf, the first !vote is a keep for a few named portal, and delete the rest. The "keep" by Allreet applies only to one portal. That leaves a clear consensus to delete the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ignoring the arguments (which the closer will not be doing, I hope) and just counting noses I see: 4 !votes to keep all, 5 to delete all, 1 to keep Bob Dylan (with no clear opinion expressed about the rest) and 1 to Keep Elvis Presley and The Beatles but delete the rest. If we take that as 5 keep votes for each of the three named portals, 4 keep votes for the remainder and 5/6 votes to delete those not named that's not a clear consensus in favour of keeping or deleting any of them. When the strength of the arguments are considered a consensus may emerge regarding some or all of them, but as editors who have strong opinions neither you nor I are in a position to make a fair assessment of that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep this deletion discussion (as suggested above). Like other discussions where many portals are listed in one MfD, it ends up being harder to discern consensus. IMO, it's best if portals are nominated in smaller batches (when the portals have major connecting characteristics) or individually, so that each portal can be evaluated on their own individual and specific nature. This vote isn't saying that I want to keep or delete these portals. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC) striked by Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. These portals are largely abandoned, and only degrading the integrity of the main articles (a reader reaching them will get the impression WP is dying; clearly so in some cases). None of them give much beyond the band's main article+naxbox and a couple of random bits of information. If the WP community was 10x its current editing power, and had enthusiasts who wanted to actively manage a band portal page, then these would make sense. But we don't have that, and we seem to be advocating a WP that never seems to have existed (and may never do so; however, if things change, they can always be re-activated). We should not be afraid of the creative destruction cycle, where things that don't work get removed, and things that do work get supported. That is why the Encylopedia Britannica is not the world's largest online encyclopedia, and WP is. We should not be afraid/nostalgic/inertial of this – we should embrace it. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alabay (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having gotten involved in several MfD's of portals (and read through BHG's main threads), I am only beginning to realize the enormous scale of this problem, and the negative effect of these abandoned portals on the integrity of WP's main articles+navboxes in the eyes of our readers (notwithstanding that a high proportion of these portals are simply an out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox; and in some cases the main article is itself out-of-date and/or tagged for issues and in desperate need of scarce editing resources).

Some of the support for abandoned portals is like Japanese holdouts after WW2. The more correct analogy is a holdout who left their island shortly after their posting, went to another country, got married and had kids, but ten years later when a ship appeared off the island, they ran back, put on the uniform, and starting waving a samurai sword on the beach. Britishfinance (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - You asked, last month, in this stalled MFD: '15 a day? [Pageviews of Portal:The Beatles. That has to be the busiest portal other than Portal:Current events. I'm serious, is there one that gets more page views than that? ' Yes, there are busier portals, both that have been nominated and that have not been nominated. Try Portal:Christianity at 119 daily pageviews, and Portal:Germany at 104 daily pageviews. Try Portal:Time at 45 daily pageviews and Portal:Cold War at 34 daily pageviews. Of course, the head articles have pageviews in the thousands. So there are more-accessed portals, although not much more accessed, and not comparable to the accesses of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A further thought that I had on the Santana Portal MfD; how are WP band portals going to compete with Facebook-band portals. While it might have seemed possible a decade ago, there is no way a fan is going to start supporting a WP-band portal when they have a much better platform with a Facebook-band portal (and linked to WP for content). In this regard, not only do WP-band portals not have much of a history, but I cannot see how they can have a future either? We should stick to what we can be distinctive, and avoid competing with Facebook? Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Music Portals

The following table shows the average daily pageviews of the portals and the lead articles for the period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019, and the ratio, and the percent (the reciprocal of the ratio). The table shows these metrics for the 25 Moxy portals (listed on 12 April and relisted on 24 May), the Adele portal (renominated on 24 May), and 4 portals that were nominated on 18 May.

Title	Portal Page Views	Article Page Views	Ratio	Notes	Percent

Eminem	13	19,275	1482.7		0.07%
Rihanna	16	14,713	919.6		0.11%
Taylor Swift	9	17,722	1969.1		0.05%
The Clash	7	2,407	343.9		0.29%
Adele	14	7,403	528.8	Second nomination	0.19%
Justin Bieber	18	18,943	1052.4	Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then.	0.10%
Rush	9	3,334	370.4		0.27%
Neil Young	8	5,806	725.8		0.14%
Pink Floyd	13	8,655	665.8		0.15%
The Rolling Stones	9	7,314	812.7		0.12%
Led Zeppelin	14	8,103	578.8		0.17%
Michael Jackson	24	28,527	1188.6		0.08%
The Jackson Family	85	3,956	46.5		2.15%
Janet Jackson	7	5,926	846.6		0.12%
Shania Twain	12	4,927	410.6	Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan.	0.24%
Frank Zappa	8	4,201	525.1		0.19%
Aerosmith	10	3,224	322.4		0.31%
Avril Lavigne	9	10,197	1133.0	Peak on 15 Feb in article access.	0.09%
Queen (band)	50	59,785	1195.7	Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb.	0.08%
Bob Dylan	15	9,373	624.9		0.16%
The Supremes	7	2,437	348.1		0.29%
The Beatles	15	14,088	939.2		0.11%
U2	9	3,993	443.7		0.23%
Grateful Dead	23	2,898	126.0		0.79%
Iron Maiden	11	3,877	352.5		0.28%
The Kinks	8	1,987	248.4		0.40%
Elvis Presley	12	24,375	2031.3		0.05%
Miles Davis	7	3,603	514.7		0.19%
Whitney Houston	7	12,726	1818.0		0.06%
AC/DC	10	7,542	754.2		0.13%

As can be seen, no article has fewer than 1900 daily pageviews. No portal has more than 85 daily pageviews, and only two portals have more than 25 daily pageviews. There are surprises, such as that Queen is the most frequently accessed portal and second most frequently accessed article (but this may have been associated with a recent movie), and that the Jackson Family had high portal access, while its most famous member, Michael Jackson, had (expectedly) high article access. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Bob Dylan do not have high rates of portal views. This confirms two related conclusions. First, portals, in general, have very low rates of access. Second, any a priori statement that a subject is a "broad subject area" and will sustain a portal can be shown a posteriori to be incorrect for individual performers. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further Discussion of Moxy Portals

add your keep/delete/comment here

Delete All except Portal:Queen (band) and Portal:The Jackson Family. These portals are not attracting sufficient numbers of readers. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Portal:Michael Jackson and Portal:Janet Jackson may be merged to Portal:The Jackson Family if it is kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for Portal:Queen (band) and Portal:The Jackson Family but only if the portals are maintained . Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Robert McClenon: Portal:The Jackson Family is not being maintained. See Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:The Jackson Family: it has only 14 topics, all created in 2010. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole set - (I have already !voted delete for some of them, only commented for the others). The pitiful state of these abandoned things can be summarized by the Portal:Bob Dylan. The code of this portal says:

{{Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected article| subpage=Selected article}}

{{Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected album| subpage=Selected album}}

{{Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected song| subpage=Selected song}}

{{Random portal component |max=2|header=Selected picture| subpage=Selected picture}}

In face of this reality, saying Many of these [singers] certainly have sufficient scope to have portal in their own right is nothing but repeating ad nauseam the same fallacy. "There could have been a portal", is not a proof of "we have a portal". In fact, the larger is the ocean, the more ridiculous is presenting two abandoned wooden boards as an elaborate navigation tool. And one month at MfD has proven beyond any doubt that no one has any intent to step forward and start working at these abandoned drafts. Stop luring the readers ! Pldx1 (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments made by others above. Portal:The Jackson Family currently begins "Introduction - show another Template:Brandon Jackson". Where "show another" links to a page saying "Purge this page - Clear the cache of this page?" and the template link is a redlink - we shouldn't be luring any readers away from the main article to such a mess. DexDor^(talk) 05:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I further emphasise my Delete All vote above; band portals have no future in WP as facebook (and others) is clearly a better platform for such things (i.e. there is a reason why all these WP band portals are abandoned and only leading to the impression that WP is abandoned). Britishfinance (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Portal:Queen (band) was moved to Portal:Queen following discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_18#Portal:Queen --kingboyk (talk) 17:27, 2 June 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Bagpipes

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: keep. Only "delete" comment was condition as "unless someone agrees to maintain" and it appears that someone does. RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bagpipes

Stillborn Wikiproject. No active members. No discussions. No point having this around at all. The old activity on the talkpage was clearing bot notifications and page setup, no collaberation. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:JarrahTree is an active editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone agrees to maintain. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strong Keep - collaboration is how it is spelt. I have not a problem in reinvigorating this project as long as delete and the comments are not used in bad faith against efforts to re-invogorate the project. As to what consititutes project deletion, I am assuming that a willing re-invogoration of projects is not treated as badly as other parts of wikipedia when trying to re-start or maintain things. So yes, with AGF will try. JarrahTree 23:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was the thought process behind splitting this from an already narrow focus wikiproject that is a narrow focus off Wikiproject Music? The narrower the project the harder you have to work to find editors interested in a small pool of pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a long and complicated answer not appropriate here - with the opportunity - in process of resurrecting the project. JarrahTree 11:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason to delete. Has a non-trivial history, and worklist. At worst, tag "inactive" with a pointer to WP:WikiProject Musical Instruments. These WikiProject MfD nominations under cover of MfD disruption by Portal nomination spamming are themselves disrupting and need to stop. Read deletion policy WP:ATD, not that there is anything wrong with leaving this page exactly as it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
further comment - a lot of material that should/could have been included in the bagpipe area had been over time mixed up and ignored or appropriated by other projects - with a range of improvements in the time since the nomination, I believe that the project is viable, expandable and very appropriate and relevant project in view of its context within the range and simply is complex enough to be not in scope of neighbouring projects such as the instrument project.

Of the over 200 variants of bagpipes, and the range of over 100 cultural contexts,(Podnos, Theodor H (1974), Bagpipes and tunings, Information Coordinators, ISBN 978-0-911772-52-4) the bagpipe project justifies it existence as self evident - it is not just scottish... the focus is neither narrow or split off from anything other than absorbing the pipe band project. Ethnomusicology speaking there is a well based cross cultural scope that encompasses an ethnographically diverse geographical range that is not easily competed with apartfrom perhaps the string instruments related to the oud and lute.(Baines, Anthony; Blackwood, B. M; Penniman, T. K. (Thomas Kenneth), 1895-1977 (1995), Bagpipes (3rd ed. / [edited] by H.T. La Rue ed.), Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, ISBN 978-0-902793-10-1{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)) JarrahTree 14:19, 15 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.

April 11, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Outline of JavaScript

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: keep. I wavered over a "no consensus" close, but frankly several of the delete arguments here seem to miss what is the purpose of an outline vs. a regular article, or what justifies deletion in draftspace vs. mainspace, so when those are given less weight there is more favoring the keep side. RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Outline of JavaScript

Massive link collection that duplicates the article JavaScript. Part of a return to the outline project that was widely rejected years ago, after the editor pushing outlines screwed up portal space. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither appropriate for Wikipedia space nor draft space. Not related to improving the encyclopedia and not a draft. Also see Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless shadow article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JavaScript. This is not a missing topic, so it should not be allowed as a draft, but there is not actually a valid reason for deletion of the history. Per policy, WP:ATD, this page should be fixed by redirect to the mainspace article. Come back to MfD if there is a dispute, but stop abusing MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a viable search term. What the nom and Feezo says. ∯WBG^converse 14:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Winged Blades of Godric: "Outline of" is the standard title for this type of page (it's a hierarchical topics list). Outlines are not designed for search, but as browsing aids. They are like tables of contents for specific subjects. See Portal:Contents/Outlines. — The Transhumanist 21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTH made many/most of the Outline of X pages. From what I have seen these creations were subject to a big cleanup years ago, though some still survive. They have not been well received by editors. Legacypac (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Lists are collections of links; that's their primary purpose. And outlines are lists. So, the nominator is proposing deletion on the basis that this page is a list. Lists, including outlines, are covered under Wikipedia's list guideline, and full-page lists, like this one, are covered under the guideline stand-alone lists.

The scope of each outline goes beyond the coverage of the root article of the same name. Their scope is Wikipedia's coverage of the entire subject. After all, they are navigation pages, for navigating whole subjects. See Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Outlines are typically far more comprehensive than the root article, because they are lists. So, this page does not duplicate the article, because 1) it is a topics list, and 2) its scope is JavaScript as covered by all of Wikipedia, like a table of contents. The best outlines have evolved into classified glossaries (classified = arranged by subject, rather than alphabetically), and include annotations to aid in topic selection for the browsing user.

Outlines have been an accepted part of Wikipedia since the beginning of Wikipedia (though initially they had other titles, and some still do). If they were widely rejected as Legacypac claims, then the entire outline system wouldn't exist. In contrast to LP's claim, thousands of editors have worked on outlines, and millions of readers use them each year.

Which brings us to whether or not this is a valid draft. Outlines are an accepted part of Wikipedia, being part of Wikipedia's contents system (which has a link on the main menu sidebar). It follows that JavaScript, a subject that has extensive coverage on Wikipedia, be included in the contents system with its own outline. — The Transhumanist 21:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've posted a notice on the JavaScript WikiProject's talk page. Please relist this MfD to allow time for them to reply, as this page features prominently on that WikiProject's main page, and they may have constructive advice on how useful this page is to the encyclopedia and to the WikiProject. WikiProjects often maintain a topics list to help plan out which articles need editing, and to help see the gaps in subject coverage to aid in deciding what new articles to create, and so we should find out if the WikiProject needs this page for those purposes or not. — The Transhumanist 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript/Outline of JavaScript. Note WP:DUD. Draftspace has not benefits for established Wikipedians, and even less for WikiProjects. Draftspace is holding pen for delaying inept spam from being put straight into mainspace. If the page is important to the WikiProject, it should be a subpage of the WikiProject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: (You !voted twice. Just a heads up). — The Transhumanist 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid draft list, in the correct format for WP:OUTLINEs. There is no valid deletion rationale provided. I think someone simply doesn't know what an outline page is. Our outlines are very useful navigational aids providing an overview of everything we have on an entire broad topic area, and are much, much easier to use for this than our category system (which is really used more by editors for maintenance than by readers). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this outline quite useful. Arguments of outlines being "link farms" are ridiculous in that outlines aren't indiscriminate collections of links. Clearly a lot of work has gone into this outline draft - in collecting the links and carefully placing them in sections. There seems to be some WP:NOTMANUAL stuff here (Online JavaScript learning resources, JavaScript news) that should be removed or partially moved into the External links section. SD0001 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify for a major rewrite. The WP:OUTLINE article includes "Just like other articles and other stand-alone lists, outlines are subject to the five pillars of Wikipedia, and must comply with Wikipedia's core content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability." This draft is nowhere close to WP mainspace standards. It's fine as a marketing piece but Wikipedia is not intended to be a host for that sort of material. Starting out, the first sentences are:
- "JavaScript (JS) – outgrowing its initial role as primarily a scripting language," ??? Cite needed for this mysterious claim as it's still a scripting language.
- "JavaScript has developed into a high-level, dynamic, untyped, object-based, multi-paradigm, and interpreted programming language." We need sources for these claims. I'm also confused as JavaScript started out as a high-level, untyped, object-based, and interpreted programming language. I did not include "dynamic" and "multi-paradigm" in the list as I have no idea what those words mean in a formal description. They seem like WP:PEA marketing buzzwords that violate NPOV.
- "JavaScript is one of the three core technologies of World Wide Web content production" (cite needed)

I also noticed that the existing overview appears to be an WP:IINFO style indiscriminate collection of information. For example "JavaScript security issues" section does not have a main article and yet includes three sub-topics. None of the three topics are issues inherent or exclusive to JavaScript. In that sense, their inclusion was indiscriminate. XSS is mentioned in the main JavaScript article but heap spraying and cookie stuffing are not. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs some cleanup before it's ready for mainspace, but deletion isn't cleanup. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 2 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center (2nd nomination)

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: keep. The keep case is as reasonable as the delete case but more numerously stated. I'll mark this also as historical since some people support this and there is no clear opposition. If vandalism or people mistaking it for a sandbox are an issue, WP:RFPP is thereaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User page design center

Delete No evidence that anyone uses this. "Historical" tag, resulting from the last MfD, was removed without discussion or substantive comment. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long history of attracting editors that treat it like a sandbox. No obvious value to the project generally. Legacypac (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure what this is meant to be, but that is a reason why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia space, or in any other namespace. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion either way, but does this nomination also include the subpages? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please of course. I've added that to the nom. statement as I believe that was implied. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was correct. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Tag Historical - We currently have a good number of pages in the Wikipedia namespace to do with user pages, such as the ones that contain all the userboxes, the barnstars, or those service awards, and I would say the content of this page is very much in the same boat as those. I also do think that such content is not completely un-relevant, since people do like to use them, and should not all be deleted. It also seems the page averages about 100 hits a day and I've seen some of this stuff on some editors pages, so I don't think it's totally unused either. Meszzy² (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tag historical. Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center. I accuse UnitedStatesian, Legacypac, and Robert McClenon of project disruption by policy-violating deletion support under cover the current MfD disrupion by their MfD Portal spamming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does this nomination have to do with the Portal space? I would appreciate being given the benefit of the assumption of good faith. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most important point is that every non-delete rationale at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:User page design center remains valid. The lesser Portal point is that MfD is disrupted by excessive Portal spam and these WP:ATD-violating nominations are not receiving sufficient scrutiny. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-R, which you are proposing here, applies only to articles. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It applies even more strongly to project space work pages, because there isn't the concern about the title being a plausible redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't understand why it uses the word "articles." UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because, the authors of that documentation were primarily concerned with articles. The documentation was written before it became fashionable to clean up old things by sending them to MfD. The principle is exactly the same. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you propose such a wording change to the WP:ATD-R guideline. It is frustrating to be told so frequently "the actual guideline is different than the one you are reading." UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, User:SmokeyJoe, take the allegation of disruptive editing to WP:ANI, or leave it alone. I still don't know what this user page design center is or what it has to do with user page design, and I still don't see why it belongs in Wikipedia space, or in any other space that is within the remit of this forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you review its history, and associated activities, which takes time, more than it should due to the terse nomination, you may see that it has a history of being useful. I did not go so far as to investigate whether it remains useful, as "once useful" is already sufficient to !vote "keep and at worst archive". I think the onus should be on the nominator to make the case for why it should not be archived in projectspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, here you go: if an MfD closes as "tag as historical", and almost immediately thereafter a participant in that MfD removes the resulting historical tag, I believe that is evidence that the "tag as historical" is not going to be a tenable result to that or any subsequent MfD for the page, and that delete is the only other option. My nom above was shorthand for that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies back for my grumpiness. To tag or not to tag is not a clear decision, I think on re-reading it all. Noting the non-zero talk page activity, I think there is a good case for not tagging historical. I think the MfD conclusion should be: "Keep", and leave the taggery for discussion on its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or mark as Historical I hate to see this page go, it's where new editors get their userpage designs, and it's also where I sometimes get templates and designs for my userpage, I think this page should be kept and marked as historical, as many new editors use this page, plus it gives new editors a chance to learn what a Wikipedia userpage is, without misusing it at the first time. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thegooduser and Kudpung (prev. mfd). Neutral on whether it should be marked historical. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as historical per above and last discussion. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have some responses to a few statements: ¨No evidence that anyone uses this.¨ -UnitedStatesian Here is some: I used it to design much of my page. ¨I still don't know what this user page design center is or what it has to do with user page design...¨ -Robert McClenon Then you obviously have not actually looked into the topic being discussed, and I believe that you should probably do that before making your decision. Another thing, I saw this MfD because I went to the Design Center to use it, and I would not keep coming back to it if it was not useful. Rorix the White (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:
- - Not sure what this is meant to be, but ....
  - The problem appears to be that it fails to document itself, and it needs to explain what it is, and to have an icon to click for instructions and explanation.
  - I take exception to User:SmokeyJoe's comments, which I consider insulting to the Delete !votes.
  - I accept his apology for having been rude.
  - I will note that this has been open for 19 days, which amounts to a side-door Relist, which illustrates that the closure of MFDs is backlogged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral on historical tag because frankly I'm not entirely sure what that entails. I for one just found this page and I literally made an audible gasp because it was just what I was looking for. Wikipedia is facing an editor shortage problem and anything we can do to make life easier for incoming editors is worth it. Wikipedia has a VERY steep learning curve. The main page gets plenty of views, in the range of 3000/month. I have seen and worked on literally hundreds of pages that get a tenth of that. Prometheus720 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or mark historical. I've been on Wikipedia for many years and I still find this MASSIVELY important and useful. It helps with learning formatting in ways that are atypical of regular page editing which can help increase participation and syntax familiarity, I visit this page very often and I believe it's an important place for newcomers. Yes we have lists of userboxes but those are not places that give total overview or formatting. This would be a major loss to me and that is why this is the first deletion discussion I've ever weighed in on. LopezJayLo98 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dhallywood

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 with no prejudice towards re-creation if someone actually wants to create and maintain a functioning portal. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Dhallywood

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned unfinished in Aug 2017. Three portal project members have done "maintenance" since but not resolved obvious issues like the blank Recognized Content section (headings only), the redlinked Topics template, the various redlinks in the Things you can do section, or the lack of featured articles or other elements that are static and can't be changed by the viewer. Portals need maintenance and the portals project is not maintaining even portals like this that could be a broad enough topic. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if I finished this portal within a few days? Thanks in advance for consideration. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep broad enough topic to pass WP:POG, issues are easily resolved. SportingFlyer T·C 08:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:POG per available content, such as that denoted in the category tree below. Also, the portal creator has asked for some time herein to potentially update the portal.

(Select [►] to view subcategories)

Dhallywood

Cinema of East Pakistan

Cinema of Bangladesh

Cinemas in Dhaka

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination does not allege lack of scope. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Moheen Reeyad seems to volunteer for the maintenance of this portal. A more formal statement would help me to make an opinion. Pldx1 (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice he created it and has not finished it yet years later. He came to the conversation because he got a deletion discussion notice. Legacypac (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No-one is going to this portal. 14 pageviews per day average, which would be even fewer before the MfD. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep at this time. If the portal isn't improved within three months, it can come back to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Portal:Film can be a completely effective way to navigate to all this content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Film would lump this in with everything else film-related worldwide, when there's clearly enough Bangladeshi films/actors to create a specific portal on. That would do a disservice to our readers. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which readers? Does anyone visit this portal? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, the disservice to our readers consist of advertising them a "portal" which is isn't a portal. With no alternates for each selection, this page is just an elaborate way of displaying three links: Cinema of Bangladesh, Jaya Ahsan , Mukh O Mukhosh.

Actually, disservice is too mind. This is more like playing a practical joke on them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could just let people read Cinema of Bangladesh which has many editors watching and maintaining it and serves 10,000+ readers a month. Seems more sensible. Legacypac (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a portal, but a fake. ONE article, ONE biography, both from 2017. Very far from a navigation tool. While user:Moheen Reeyad seems to volunteer for the maintenance of this portal was only that: seeming. And now, 21 days later, we have the answer to: What if I finished this portal within a few days?. The right question was rather: what if not ? And the answer is: delete (with no prejudice to a maintainer for real, Who Would Land From The Stars). Pldx1 (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreating an actively curated portal not based on a single navbox, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

Regardless of anyone's views on whether this is a suitable topic for a portal, what we have here is simply an abandoned draft. It's not a portal, because with only one article and one biography, it's nothing more than flier for a thin single issue of magazine which only ever had one issue. This page as it stands is simply a waste of readers' time, a page of pointlessness to which they are lured on a false promise of content.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POG failure. A maintainer commented asking "what if I finished it" and then hasn't finished it. No prejudice against curated recreation. SITH (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and improve. This is a valid topic that can always be expanded and the issues can be addressed.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear User:Vinegarymass911 are you saying "I will improve", "I will expand" and "I will address", or are you saying: "hey you peones, do improve, do expand, do address, instead of criticizing this empty portal for being empty" ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient scope. Content issues should be addressed via editing or discussing on the relevant talk pages per WP:DEL-CONTENT. Waggers TALK 15:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - One month after the launching of this MfD, this fake portal continues to contain no more than ONE snippet about an article and ONE snippet about a biography, both from 2017. Great place to emit the comment content issues should be addressed via editing, as a method to suggest that "lack of links to any content should be addressed by waiting, and praying, and waiting, and...". There is no deadline to stop mocking our readers by pretending there could be some slideshow here, is there ? Pldx1 (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient content available for this topic to support a portal, and there are no apparent problems that cannot be resolved through normal editing. It's not perfect, but not being perfect is not a reason for deletion and the issues are not significant enogh to require TNT. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That description of not perfect is an extreme euphemism for an abandoned collection of old WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It needs to be completely rebuilt from a blank sheet", because a set of 12-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers.

In the meantime, it is disruptive to continue to waste the time of readers by luring them to a page which has been abandoned for ages.

The notion which Thryduulf suggests that these failings can be be resolved through normal editing is implausible to the point of fantasy, because:

There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals
Category:All portals currently contains 1,315 portals, of which 1,063 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's about 80% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 13 years
Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. Thryduulf has not identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic.

The notion that normal editing will fix the problems simply denies the reality of long-term neglect. In portalspace, normal editing has left most portals to rot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations at WP:Portal/Guidelines says for the Selected article, Selected biography or other Selected content items, find a good number (i.e. a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles) of articles, as many as you can, that could be showcased on the portal. On the other hand, we have one month after the launching of this MfD, this fake portal continues to contain no more than ONE snippet about an article and ONE snippet about a biography, both from 2017. This could be solved by admitting that ${\displaystyle 2\ll 20}$ . But User:Thryduulf doesn't admit this assertion. If we try to assume some conspiracy theory, this leads easily to "Thryduulf is involved in some sneaky campaign to impose the deletion of the whole portal space". But this would not save the day: a conspiracy theory should explain everything, and we would be left with: "why will Thryduulf be involved in a sneaky campaign against the whole portal space"? It only remains to deal with AGF + ${\displaystyle {\rm {not}}\left(2\ll 20\right)}$ . Solution, anyone ? Pldx1 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: your comment makes absolutely no sense at all. I support the deletion of some portals, I oppose the deletion of others, I have no strong opinions about the rest. I'm not alleging anybody is part of a conspiracy (if I'm part of one then nobody has done me the courtesy of telling me). The rest of your comment might as well be in a foreign language for all the sense it makes. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 12 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tashkent

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: No consensus. I find persuasive arguments that the subject area is broad enough to sustain a portal, and Gazamp and SportingFlyer have volunteered to maintain the portal. However, I also find persuasive arguments that readers would be served equally well if not better by a navbox, that articles in the topic area as a whole are underdeveloped, and that our resources would be better spent trying to improve the articles rather than maintaining a portal. At this time I do not see a clear consensus either way. I suggest those arguing for a navbox create one, and those arguing to keep the portal continue to work on improving both articles in the topic area and the portal itself, and perhaps revisit this discussion in 6-12 months. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tashkent

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This portal does nothing but repeat the text from the article lead and allow you to scroll through photos already in the article Tashkent. The only other pages it links to are the 12 districts of the city, also linked from the article. This adds nothing to the reader's experience. Just a distraction on the way to the article. Why would we direct a reader from the article on the city to this page? Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though there's quite a lot of content in the categories for Tashkent, on spot checks little of it seems above stub or a short start. No prejudice to recreating once appropriate content has been developed in English, as capital cities with a long history are suitable portal topics. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm generally ok with capital city portals but this one is only half built with no effort being put into it. Adds nothing to the article. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a copy-and-paste keep vote due to the large number of nominations stating I have reviewed the portal and believe it passes WP:POG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When copypaste voting at one a minute or more you barely have time to find and open the MfD, paste and save. This vote does nothing to address the nomination reasons. Legacypac (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use multiple tabs. My vote stands. I do not appreciate you trying to eliminate my votes as disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This meets neither the breadth-of-topic nor the quality-of-Wikipedia coverage requirements of the WP:POG guideline. !voters are encouraged to focus on guideline-based reasonings. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as per nominator, and under construction too long, so clearly not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gazamp (talk · contribs) fixed up the portal on April 3, adding in a number of articles which clearly show the breadth of the topic and fixed a number of the photos. If there was a problem before, there's much less of a problem now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Think this could use further input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the city is over 2 million people and a national capital which are reasons it qualifies for a portal. Now that the page has been fixed it is not useless compared to most portals. I'm ok with a withdrawal if others will recind their delete votes. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still don't see how Portal:Uzbekistan doesn't completely duplicate this content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dear Gazamp (talk · contribs), if you are volunteering as a maintainer for this portal, please say so in the {{Portal maintenance status}} line. Pldx1 (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Pldx1, apologies for the late reply as I was away from a computer for the last few days. I've done as suggested and will maintain the portal if it survives. Gazamp (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maintained portal. Doesn't belongs to this series. Pldx1 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not deleting my delete unless there is a volunteer to maintain. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No value over the article itself so still delete. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: If Gazamp doesn't, I will. It was on my list to fix up but Gazamp happily beat me to it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with the understanding that the portal, if kept, may be renominated within 60 days if it is not maintained. We have seen too many good-faith agreements to maintain portals that have not been kept. The argument of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is true but irrelevant. Keeping a portal is optional; maintaining a portal is not optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to navbox, then delete. The addition of further articles to the list[51] has improved it beyond the state it was in when nominated as simply a bloated version of Template:Districts of Tashkent. At that point, it was simply another automated pseudo-portal.

However, even with these additions it remains simply an image gallery plus a scroll-through list a randomly-selected subset of the grand total of 22 articles. Readers would be much better served by a navbox, which would simultaneously display links to all these topics in one place. The mouseover previews which are shown to unregistered users provide nearly all the preview functionality of the portal, without being restrained to see only one link at a time. Put simply, navboxes offer vastly superior reader experience.

As is so often the case with these portals, the portal is a solution in search of a problem. Our readers would be vastly better served by a navbox than by yet another portal whose existence implicitly makes the WP:PORTAL promise that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but whose reality is just a degraded version of the head article.

Tashkent is only a Level-4 vital article, i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics. The history of en.wp portals shows that most portals even in the top 1,000 are neglected; that is what prompted the failed crusade to automate them. I see no reason to believe that 4 months after its creation, this portal is likely to sprout into a rare exception to the dismal norm.

Much as I value the goodwill of @Gazamp and SportingFlyer, they have made similar commitments to other portals but I have yet to see any example where either of them has taken a useless portal like this and upgraded it to something which clearly is an "enhanced 'Main Page'" for the topic. There are far too many previous examples of MFDs going back many many years, where similar good faith promises of improvement have been made but not delivered because sooner or later the editors involved find that making a genuinely useful portal requires a lot of sustained hard work, but their time is not unlimited and/or their interests evolve. It's time to put a stop to this time-wasting cycle.

I invite @Pldx1 and @Robert McClenon to review my comments and reconsider their !voters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keeping Keep. This MfD board is not for making policy. And no more portals would be a policy. A better policy, yes, quite sure. But here, we are deciding if this portal, in its present state, is to be deleted, or to be kept (assuming that portal space is kept, at least for now). There are maintainers, and thus stupidities like the Plato, the Versailles and the Bucharest Gate stupidities will be avoided. And this will allow this two users to experiment about their opinion. And perhaps change their mind. Or perhaps not. The road to consensus is rarely straightforward. In any case, using a navbox to keep another track of what they are doing would be great. Or even using this new navbox as the easiest way to program their portal ! Pldx1 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for deletion is based on the existing policy WP:PORTAL, not on my recommendations for the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Gazamp or User:SportingFlyer - What value do you propose that a portal will offer to readers that an improved navbox will not? I am not changing my !vote again, which is currently at Neutral, but I think that User:BrownHairedGirl and the community should be told what you plan to provide to the community of readers by maintaining this portal. Also, is there a reason why you are focusing on this particular head article and portal? (Just because IS a reason.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: - To be honest, BrownHairedGirl is right - this portal is never going to be a great one merely because of the fact that many of the pages it displays are not great anyway. Although I won't change my vote and I would still offer to maintain the portal, I don't see much worth in it; we would be better off supporting Portal:Uzbekistan. Gazamp (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: It's really frustrating to have the deletion discussion be framed as not whether the largest city in Central Asia can have a portal for passing WP:POG - it clearly checks all of those boxes - but rather does this particular portal "have value," which is a policy discussion. Not only does this pass WP:POG, but both Gazamp and myself have an interest in maintaining this. SportingFlyer T·C 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, @SportingFlyer, this discussion is about the application of existing policy to a page. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This junk is not enhanced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:SportingFlyer is posting nonsense when they say that the argument about whether this portal in its current state has value is a policy discussion. Whether portals have value is a policy discussion. Whether a portal on Tashkent should have value is a matter of portal guidelines, and so is a policy discussion. Whether any particular page in its current form has value is precisely what XFD, deletion discussions, are all about. Pages that have no value should be deleted, at least if there is no reason to believe they can be fixed, and there is no reason to believe that useless portals will be improved, after many broken promises about them. User:SportingFlyer is posting nonsense when they say that the value of this portal as it currently stands is a policy discussion outside the scope of this deletion discussion. It is so what this deletion discussion is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not nonsense, and I don't appreciate that characterisation of my position. The guidelines on WP:POG aren't well defined, and WP:USELESS is meant to be avoided at deletion discussions. The guideline we're arguing over: "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section." This article objectively passes, and none of the portal deletionists have shown otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @SportingFlyer ... Also in the same guideline: Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create. That is the wording as firmed up[52] by @The Transhumanist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - If one of the supporters of the portal will not try to persuade me, one of the detractors of the portal can be persuasive. If no one sees value in the portal, it isn't worth maintaining it as a pixel-sink. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with fewer than twenty article links, this portal doesn't meet the breadth of scope for portals. SITH (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a capital city it has sufficient scope for a portal to exist. Content issues should be addressed via editing or discussing on the relevant talk pages per WP:DEL-CONTENT, and should bear in mind there is no deadline. Waggers TALK 15:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should let User:Gazamp maintain this portal as he sees fit, rather than giving the impression that keep !voters only have spurious arguments for this portal. Pldx1 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POG says that portal topics must have enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section. The current featured content section has exactly one article of above Start-class: Management Development Institute of Singapore in Tashkent, which is C-class. I've had a look at the larger articles which are in Category:Tashkent and actually have some sort of relevance here and I can't find more which are above Start-class. Even if it is a suitable topic for a portal it's not covered sufficiently well on Wikipedia to sustain one. Hut 8.5 20:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to navbox, then delete. Per BHG above. Portal is just a re-cut of the main article, which is missing an overall topic navbox. Don't see the purpose in spreading our already thin editing resources on this, versus having an excellent main article+navbox (which we currently don't). Only then will we have earned the right, in the reader's eyes, to add further detail. At the moment, we neither have a good portal or a good main article+navbox, which it not a good use of our resources and focus. Britishfinance (talk) 11:06, 18 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé

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. Consensus is that "copious documentation of a very narrow topic: the career of one musician/actor" (wording from BHG) is not sufficient to meet WP:POG. In other words, the existence of lots of articles about a narrow topic does not make it a broad topic, it makes it a comprehensively covered narrow topic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Beyoncé

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single performer bio portal same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brandy Norwood. Article does a better job. This was restarted in September as an automated portal evidently because it was not being maintained. No reason to believe the restarter will maintain this page (and yes automated portals need maintaining). Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:POG. An assumption it won't be maintained in the future isn't a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 05:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is - it was not maintained before and the editors that restarted it have shown they can"t and will not maintain portals they create. So who? Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history - it has had plenty of edits. SportingFlyer T·C 05:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:POG. Expandable from the pre-automated version, and I already expanded it a bit with some of this content, including the re-addition of the Recognized content and Related portals sections. More can be done. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000 & @SportingFlyer: no, this does not meet WP:POG. POG requires that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In this case Beyoncé is not even in the top 10,000 topics: it is level-5 vital article, the lowest tier of VA, for topics ranked 10,001–50,000 in importance. It's very clear that the community does not want even 5,000 portals. let alone 10,001–50,000.

And it also fails the second part that principle: it doesn't "attract large numbers of interested readers". See the Jan–Mar 2019 pageviews: only 12/day for the portal, vs 13,869/day for the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Beyoncé is a "broad subject area." The importance is a red herring - the question is whether the topic is broad enough in scope to have enough content to justify a portal. I've seen 20 articles quoted several places, which this clearly meets. Even your "even 5,000 portals" claim is pointed against portals. What is clear to me is the community does not want a large number of portals created in bulk, and there's not much consensus around anything else. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, of course it is pointed against portals, because the evidence points against portals in all but a very few cases. You claim that the question is whether the topic is broad enough in scope to have enough content to justify a portal, but that's only one of the tests. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", but the overwhelming majority are unmaintained and barely used. I'm sorry that a long-standing guidance backed up by hard data looks to you like some sort of bias, but the numbers are clear: readers don't need and don't use this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS The "broad subject area" claim is bizarre. The topic is the life and works of one sole musician, which is very narrow, The fact that en.wp editors have covered that topic in copious detail does not make bit anything other than a narrow topic; it just makes it a copiously-documented narrow topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Let's cut to the chase here - my definition of passing WP:POG is 20 or more articles to sustain a topic, based off the current guidelines, which Beyoncé clearly passes. What's your definition of "narrow?" Basically all these arguments are WP:USELESS, but that is not what the community has said recently about portals. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, OK, I'll cut to the chase too. Your personal criterion of 20 pages is no part of POG. Its simply a WP:ILIKEIT test, and arguments based on it should be discarded by the closer.

Meanwhile, "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" is part of POG, and I have shown you hard data by which we can measure it.

So the policy issues are very clear. The remaining question is what on earth drives you to defend a navigational device which readers do not want, is contrary to long-standing guidance, and do so in the midst of huge ongoing drama? Whats this really about? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: There are two separate issues here - whether portals should remain, and if so, which portals should remain. This is not a discussion of "whether" but rather a discussion of "which." This is a topic which is broad enough to attract readers and portal maintainers. That it has not done so is not relevant to whether it should be kept, and respectfully, unlike say WP:GNG which at least provides something tangible for us to argue over at AfD, whether something is a "broad subject area" is currently being decided case-by-case with differing results based on participation. "Personal criteria" aside, the "20 pages" has been quoted in other MfDs. I'm too lazy to sort through them now, but it's not a number I arbitrarily picked. SportingFlyer T·C 01:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @SportingFlyer, this is a discussion of which portals should remain. And that's why I have supplied evidence-backed, guideline-based reasons to delete this portal. It's a pity that you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the hard data is on the table.

As to the minimum of 20, it is proposal which has been advanced by some of the portal fans, and even written unilaterally by them into the guidelines occasionally, only to be reverted. It has never had broad consensus support. I for one consider it to be insanely, risibly low; the minimum should be at least one order of magnitude higher, preferably two orders. For smaller numbers, navboxes and series of navboxes do a much better job (see e.g. the series under Category:Ireland constituency navigational boxes, which I built; or the series by nth Parliament at Category:United Kingdom by-election templates, which I had some hand in.

Also note that a minimum is not a mandate. Similar rough thresholds apply in several other contexts, but again not as a mandate. For example, WP:SMALLCAT has an informal but commonly accepted threshold of 5 pages, but that is not take as a license to chop up a 60-page category into a dozen morsels. WP:DYK has a rigid minimum size which again is not a mandate; longer articles can be rejected.

What you may have seen at MFD is me and some other editors citing that claimed minimum when seeking deletion of portals with even narrower scope, making the point that the portal doesn't even meet that absurdly low minimum. See e.g. MFD:Portal:Industry, California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with the "absurdly low minimum." There's no bright line test, and a review of Beyoncé's content on the site shows the topic broad enough to maintain a portal on. The "hard data" only shows it's not currently being used much, but to me the "hard data" is a "whether" argument, not a "which" argument. There's nothing else on the site I'm aware of we delete because it's not being used, apart from, perhaps, abandoned drafts. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A single-person portal is too narrow a focus. This one does have a category, but that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This performer is not a broad enough subject to meet the requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use more and more detailed input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per the relisting comment requesting more detailed input, which is most appreciated, below is the category tree and Recognized content for Beyoncé (in collapsed form), which includes featured articles and lists and a plethora of good articles. Per content available about the subject, and the significant amount of high-quality content, the subject passes WP:POG to qualify for a portal.

Beyoncé Recognized content

Featured articles

Featured lists

Good articles

Main page featured articles

Good topics

B'Day

Beyoncé categories

Select [►] to view subcategories

no subcategories

Albums produced by Beyoncé

no subcategories

Beyoncé audio samples

no subcategories

Beyoncé concerts

Beyoncé concert residencies

Beyoncé concert tours

Destiny's Child

Destiny's Child album covers

Destiny's Child albums

Destiny's Child members

Destiny's Child songs

Films directed by Beyoncé

no subcategories

Images of Beyoncé

no subcategories

Music videos directed by Beyoncé

no subcategories

Parkwood Entertainment artists

no subcategories

Beyoncé perfumes

no subcategories

Song recordings produced by Beyoncé

no subcategories

Beyoncé songs

The Carters songs

Songs written by Beyoncé

no subcategories

The Carters

The Carters songs

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

Discussion from 2008 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Britney Spears is on point here. It lead to an uncontroversial deletion of a bigger name portal Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Madonna (entertainer) and the concerns were the same as expressed in the current round of discussions. Lack of scope, poor maintenance etc. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my additional discussion: This portal was previously deleted, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé Knowles. She has had a 29-year career if you count all the way back (which is a BIG stretch); compare that to Frank Sinatra and it is not close. The article is not even a Level-4 vital article (that's the top 10,000). I'm not saying the topic won't be broad enough some day, but it is not broad enough now. Plus there is no one who has signed up to do the necessary maintenance on this Portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What necessary maintenance is required for this particular portal? If the portal is retained, perhaps a notice could be placed at WikiProject Beyoncé stating any concerns and to request a maintainer. Regarding concerns about the automated status of the portal, it could easily be reverted to this version, which would solve the issue quite easily. In fact, if it is retained, I would prefer for it to be reverted to this version and then expanded from this starting point. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I just had to edit Portal:Beyoncé/Related portals to remove 1 deleted portal and 1 Portal that was listed twice. Those types of changes are required ALL THE TIME (even in your supposedly better version). UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly offtopic; there is literally nothing to be gained from rehashing these arguments/attacks ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, those that opine for deletion of portals should take steps such as this to ensure that red links aren't interspersed everywhere afterward. I do so all the time, such as after an AfD discussion has resulted in deletion. It seems that those that !vote a lot to delete may not bother to actually do so, with a potential premise that since deletion can correlate with not caring about the content, there is then therefore no need to spend more time on the content. In this manner, such inaction can then be used to qualify for the deletion of other content; a vicious circle of sorts. A portal listed twice, well, sometimes minor errors occur, but I don't see that as a qualifier for deletion of an entire portal. That would be like deleting an entire article just because it was WP:OVERLINKed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. You geniuses on the WP:WikiProject Portals team ENSURED these portals would be impossible to maintain, as all the links to portals are via templates and so CAN'T be removed using Twinkle or any other related automated tools (like we do after an AfD). And none of you stopped to think "wow, maybe we should see if the community is cool with everything we are doing" before the thousands of portals were created (or, for that matter, just read the guideline). Don't blame the deletion nominators for the mess YOU created in the first place. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had no involvement in the coding of the auto-portal templates, nor did the entire project at all. Makes no sense to blame an entire project for the actions of the one or two who worked on the templates. My overall participation in the project has actually been rather minimal, and actually, I resigned from the project because of concerns in the direction it was going. So, one user created thousands of portals, and yet the whole project is to blame? Were project members supposed to constantly monitor the creator of all those portals, like nannies? Other participants are likely just people that signed up out of general, basic interest, just like me. I'm a member of many projects, but I don't constantly monitor them all. Blaming an entire project for the actions of one is rather ridiculous, no? Anyway, if I think about other reasons to consider regarding this portal, such as how it can be easily reverted to its non-automated version in a simple few clicks, then I'll consider posting more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        A big problem with automatically including content from elsewhere into a portal it was not designed for is that weird stuff gets in and/or breaks the portal. Non-vandal good edits at the source can mess up the portal in unexpected ways. You can watchlist the portal all you want but you have to visit it regularly to check for automatic errors that don't show up as watchlist edits. No ome on Team Portalspam thought this through. They were not even checking creations as the errors from day one show. If we wanted to read bot creations there are lots of really low traffic sites out there to visit. Legacypac (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Old portal created 2010-02-16T23:54:31Z by User:FranklinG. Waiting for a comment by a maintainer, if any: Portal:Beyoncé. Pldx1 (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remark: a maintainer would obviously know where to assert this maintainer's role... Pldx1 (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The notion of some sort of "required" maintainer goes squarely against the grain of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, part of the WP:NOT policy page, where it states, "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." There certainly is no requirement for "maintainers" that edit in other namespaces. MfD is not cleanup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this portal is not maintained, then only worth to be deleted. Pldx1 (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By WP:POG portals should be panes for a vast content. Portals for single biographies fail in WP:POG. The vast majority of portals do not receive actual content for years, in this case about five years. Fan-created, after abandoned, do not arouse community interest. Single biography portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree, 679 pageviews (30 days) for Portal:Beyoncé compared to 369,117 pageviews (30 days) for Beyoncé also demonstrates that readers do not see much sense in exploring a narrow topic portal like single biography portal..Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Beyonce is quite a notable public figure, I don't think her article scope is enough to count as a broad topic area that requires a portal tão help navigate. Meszzy² (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure, the scope is not broad, but I think we should keep portals which showcase a substantial amount of high quality content, as this one does. Hut 8.5 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5, Who is the intended audience of this showcasing (readers? editors?). What would the showcasing be intended to achieve? DexDor^(talk) 19:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a place for general discussion of the merits or purpose of portals in general. Hut 8.5 20:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So look at the specifics. It gets only 12 pageviews, which is 0.084% of the views of the head article. Readers do not want it your showcase. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide to keep or delete things based on pageviews, except possibly when we're trying to decide whether a redirect is a plausible search term. The pageview figures you cite are far higher than the average article gets. Hut 8.5 11:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That response would carry a lot of weight if portals were content. But they are not content, just a navigational device. So the fact that readers don't want and don't use this navigational device is good evidence that it is a superfluous navigation tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal 804 page views Article 372,601 page views in 30 days. The portal is getting extra traffic from the clean up. Who are we fooling when we think we are showcasing anything? 800 pages views is dismil for a page linked off a page with 372,000 visitors, plus all the other places this portal is linked from. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, Beyoncé's highly successful career in both music and film has attracted a lot of covergae on Wikipedia. We not only have a few lots of articles which pass WP:GNG, but 6 FA-Class articles and 107 GA-Class articles and 2 featured list].

However, WP:POG requires that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

This is clearly not a "broad subject area". On the contrary, it is copious documentation of a very narrow topic: the career of one musician/actor. This reflects Wikipedia's systemic bias towards popular culture, and while it's great that editors have done such a fine job of containing the topic, the depth of coverage does not alter its narrowness. We have articles on tens of thousands of notable, living musicians, but this topic is about just one of them.

Note the second part of that POG intro: "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers". We have hard data on that, from pageviews. The data below is for January–March 2019:

Page	Total pageviews	Pageviews per day
Beyoncé	1,248,166	13,869
Portal:Beyoncé	1053	12

That amounts to 1,185 views of the head article for every view of the portal. Or to put it the other way round, the portal gets 0.084% of the page views of the head article.

The figures for Jan-Mar 2018 are similar: the portal got only 12 pageviews per day

It's not hard to see what is happening here. The head article does an excellent job as a navigation hub, and the navbox cross-links the articles. Readers simply don't need to look for the articles.

It is not hard to see why portals such as this are so little used.

Wikipedia pages are so heavily interlinked that even a modestly well-written head article on a topic is of itself a portal. This isn't like the mid-1990s web, when web pages were mostly plain text with a few links at the top and the bottom; rich interlinking is now the norm, and portals are redundant.
Search. As web analysts such as Jakob Nielsen noted as early as 1998, good search killed navigation, because users found it much easier to search than to navigate a website's menu structures. That's why search suddenly became de rigeur on web sites, and why the major web portals such as Yahoo fell off a cliff. Readers simply don't need portals any more; they are like road atlases in the era of satnav.

It's time to stop luring editors into fettling a type of page whose heyday was over before Wikipedia was even created. Most of these portals are simply redundant forks of the head article, which offer much less navigational utility than the head article. And just look again at that pageview data: readers do not want then.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Portals are for "broad subject areas". Beyonce isn't a broad subject, she's an individual person.
This particular portal is for the most part a fork of the head article, making it redundant.
Furthermore, pageview statistics show most people who want to find out about Beyonce simply go to her article.

Therefore, delete as it falls outside portal scope. SITH (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Portals about individual people are of very doubtful usefulness because the obvious place that anyone is going to start navigating the topic is the article about that person, which in this case has numerous attached navboxes and categories to aid that navigation. --RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 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.

April 10, 2019

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

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. Judging by the discussion, it seems like the various "procedural keeps" are primarily motivated by whether Portal:Los Angeles should be considered; it has been struck and thus no longer within scope of this MFD. The remaining arguments are mostly supportive of deleting the other portals, so deletion is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

Four more LA neighbourhood level portals. We already have Portal:Greater Los Angeles which is the scope that the WikiProject California correctly decided was appropriate for the Los Angeles portal (see history link on the LA portal above). TTH overrode that group decision to create a portal for the "city proper". Then he made numerous portals for individual neighborhoods within the city proper (the first four here, a batch BHG nominated, and several more I placed in a previous nomination). These are not supported by WikiProject Califonia, who wanted correctly to broaden the scope of the portal to cover the whole metro area. Focusing on one broad scope portal is far better then a bunch of micro portals. The LA subpages are housekeeping since they were abandoned unused in 2010 and were not used in TTH's reboot. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Procedural Keep - I am unhappily arguing against deletion of these portals because the history of this nomination is tainted by User:Legacypac by (1) altering User:BrownHairedGirl's original nomination against her careful definition; (2) User:Legacypac apparently trying to suppress a caution from an admin about disruptive editing. We don't need these portals, but we even less need Legacypac's scorched-earth campaign against the portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was super clear there when and how I added these 4 to the larger nomination. Clearly these are not needed any more than the ones BHG nominated. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, I am sad to see that you seem to have completely ignored the explanation I wrote about adding those pages to the other XFD was disruptive. And even sadder to see that you deleted it without archiving it[53], leaving an edit summary which makes it very clear that you still don't get the problem: go target the real problem makers that created this mess and throw up roadblocks to cleanup.

I agree entirely that a huge cleanup is needed. But that cleanup is impeded by recklessly mangling MfD nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This is an apples-and-oranges situation. 4 extant portals jumbled in with a housekeeping issue makes for a fractured discussion. Except that it's not entirely a housekeeping issue, because @Legacypac did not disclose they they unilaterally redirected Portal:Los Angeles. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Archive_5#Portals_of_Los_Angeles_and_San_Diego was mostly 2 editors, with 3 others making occasional contribs, and it was 9 years ago. So that needs separate discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now BHG don't lie. Yes I restored the long standing redirect because one portal is clearly an overlap with the other. Contrary to your hostile statement about lack of disclosure, I specifically said "but not the main page that I restored to a redirect" and also pointed to the history of Portal LA link where you can clearly see my editorial action. I'm not seeking to delete the redirect and if it makes you feel better I can tag all the old Subpages G8 which they obviously are. Now can we keep this discussion on topic and less of a whining about me? Taking a discussion off the rails by complaining I've made a mess of another discussion is ironic. Robert started the WP:X3 discussion that was supervoted down, so he already expressed that these should be deleted without debating them individually. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-24T02:42:16Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Bel Air, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T12:07:30Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:San Pedro, Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-09-01T14:11:15Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Downtown Los Angeles

- An automated portal, created 2018-08-24T03:18:46Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:South Los Angeles

Pldx1 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as it seems the portal with the housekeeping issue, Portal:Los Angeles, has been removed from the nomination. Looking at the four remaining portals, they seem to just be auto navbox portals, and I don't think individual areas of Los Angeles are broad enough topics to need a portal to help navigate. Meszzy² (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Once a nomination is corrupted, even if by the enthusiasm of its supporter, it should be started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per Robert McClenon. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: again, a case where ignore all rules should really be applied. I know many feel process is important, but at the end of the day these are going to get deleted anyway, whether it's as a result of this discussion or as a result of a renomination which is more aligned with process because they all don't meet the portal inclusion guideline. SITH (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't see that the nominator's behavior taints the nomination in any way that makes it impossible for us to reach a reasonable decision about the usefulness of these portals. Portals about small cities and individual neighborhoods are too narrow. --RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. I'm not going to speak to the merits of each nominated portal, but a formal process needs to follow agreed rules. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 3 May 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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom

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. Seems like most participants are convinced that WP:POG is not met Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom

(convenience link: subject article Prostitution in the United Kingdom)

Delete Has the same fundamental issue as the previously deleted Portal:Prostitution in Canada, Portal:Prostitution in India and Portal:Prostitution in Japan: not broad enough subject matter to meet the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: considering the consensus at the three now-deleted "Prostitution in X" portals, I think it's fair to say consensus is that "Prostitution in X" doesn't pass WP:POG. Invoke IAR. SITH (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - An automated portal, created 2018-10-28T12:59:54Z, only worth of an automated deletion: Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom. Pldx1 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)~~.[reply]
changed, as a result of the following discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: That is incorrect. It is driven by sub-pages that were manually created which deliver a smaller number of selected, more relevant articles and images than the "automated" navbox driven portals. --John B123 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123:. The first line of this portal says: This portal was created using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}
The 3rd line of this portal says: {{Portal maintenance status |date=October 2018 |subpages=none |broken= |note= }}. In other words, this portal is so poorly maintained that no maintainer is given, while subpages=none indicates that no subpages are used (or even are to be kept). Moreover, when reading the 'images' and 'articles' --edited once for all 2018-10-28-- it becomes obvious that, the infobox of the main article being shamefully empty, some elements have been taken from this main article and put there. E.g. the 'images' contains a grand-total of 8 pictures. Whaow ! Some figures about views during the current month are given at: [[54]]. Pldx1 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: A case of only seeing what you want to see, if you had looked further you would have seen:

Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected general articles - Selected articles transcluded from sub-page Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected general articles

Transclude files as random slideshow | Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected images Images transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Selected images

Random portal component|max=3|header=Did you know...|headertemplate = Box-header colour|subpage=DYK DYK transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/DYK

{{/Recognised content}} Recognised content transcluded from Portal:Prostitution in the United Kingdom/Recognised content

As you have obviously taken such an interest in the page history, I'm surprised you din't notice that the sub-pages were added after the "Portal maintenance status" note. I'm also somewhat puzzled by your stating the portal doesn't use subpages but then quote the creation date of the sub-pages --John B123 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123:. I was not saying the portal doesn't use subpages. I was saying the portal maintenance status line indicates that no subpages are used (or even are to be kept). And this is the case even now. Moreover, even now, the maintainer= field in this {{Portal maintenance status}} line is not filled. If it was, I could move to Keep. Pldx1 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pldx1: Apologies if I misunderstood you. I did assume the "portal maintenance status" was automatically updated, but obviously not, so have updated it. --John B123 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the just above discussion. Concerning the {{Portal maintenance status}}, it is clear that the "New Portals Team" hasn't done their job to advertise how to deal with this key tool. Pldx1 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and we don't need any more Prostitution in Somewhere portals. BTW Portal:Prostitution is a sorry navbox based portal too. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And totally irrelevant to this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This portal does not have the same fundamental issues as Portal:Prostitution in Canada, Portal:Prostitution in India and Portal:Prostitution in Japan, which were created as part of 1,300 portals created by a single user and navbox driven. This portal uses subpages to select relevant featured articles, images dyk etc, not random articles from a navbox. It far exceeds the minimum requirements of WP:POG. The subject is broad enough to have a considerable number of related articles above start class, including 10 FA and GA articles. Because other portals regarding prostitution have been deleted for poor quality etc, that is not a precedent to delete all portals on this subject. This nomination clearly meets the criteria for speedy keep per WP:EARLY: "Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question" --John B123 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you, I read the Portal: before nominating it for deletion, and if you read my nomination you will note it was based solely on the grounds of WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-area requirement; one which the three deleted portals, whatever their other faults, did not meet either. UnitedStatesian (talk)
Keep. I think the topic is just about wide enough for a portal, and this portal shows how to use the randomiser elements of the new-style portals together with hand-curated (subpage based) instead of navbox based selections. —Kusma (t·c) 20:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Did You Know that this portal says 15,000 people are believed to have been buried at Cross Bones, an unconsecrated graveyard for prostitutes in Southwark, south London while the article Cross Bones says By 1769 [Cross Bones] was being used as a cemetery for the poor of St. Saviour's parish. Up to 15,000 people are believed to have been buried there. Not really the same assertions. Did You Know the source of the first one ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording has now been changed. --John B123 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This portal appears to be actively maintained. The narrow topic is why I am not arguing for Keep. Other than that, this is a portal in good condition.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A country portal is enough to contemplate all the subtopics that may exist regarding it. I think sub portals about countries (Portal:cuisine of "country" , military of "country", economy of "country", in this case Prostitution in "country") are unnecessary and does not meet WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This is far too narrow a topic. The head article Prostitution in the United Kingdom is not even a level-5 vital article, i.e. it's not even in the top 50,000 topics by priority.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this portal is is a significantly less useful navigational hub than the head article Prostitution in the United Kingdom and the navbox Template:Prostitution in the United Kingdom. It is simply un-needed. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not the same as the auto-generated portals, but nonetheless this is too narrow a topic. The more general Portal:Prostitution can serve this content and has a marginally better chance of drawing some eyes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 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.

Closed discussions

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ===May 3, 2019===
-{{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:George200567}}
 {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jftsang/Books/Biographies of fluid dynamicists}}