::I agree, but again, this is not the right venue. --[[User:Hecato|Hecato]] ([[User talk:Hecato|talk]]) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
::I agree, but again, this is not the right venue. --[[User:Hecato|Hecato]] ([[User talk:Hecato|talk]]) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I really think {{ping|User:BrownHairedGirl}} should stop nominating portals for deletion until editors reach a consensus on how to proceed. Things normally work more smoothly when more editors are on board rather than going after portals at random. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I really think {{ping|User:BrownHairedGirl}} should stop nominating portals for deletion until editors reach a consensus on how to proceed. Things normally work more smoothly when more editors are on board rather than going after portals at random. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 23:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
::::I really think that editors should resume discussing MFD nominations in accordance with portal guidelines. NA1K+cronies should desist from attempting to disrupt consensus formation by NA1K's campaign of systematic mendacity, and desist from complaining when the mendacity is challenging.
::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]]-formation depend upon editors discussing in good faith, and sadly NA1K's repeated blatant lies have poisoned the atmosphere of several recent discussions. I look forward to NA1K cleaning up their act, and I hope that Hecato and Moxy and KK87 will assist NA1K to return to honest discussion. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:#663200;">Brown</span>HairedGirl</span>]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this poorly made portal.[[User:Catfurball|Catfurball]] ([[User talk:Catfurball|talk]]) 21:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' this poorly made portal.[[User:Catfurball|Catfurball]] ([[User talk:Catfurball|talk]]) 21:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Still-born static micro-portal. Apart from formatting tweaks, abandoned since 2006. Fails the WP:POG "broad subject area" requirement.
Created in July 2006 by Eupator (talk·contribs), whose last edit to the portal was in November 2007[1].
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so editors are quite entitled to move on to other interests, and this creation predates the warning in the lede of WP:POG says "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create". But a portal still has to be maintained by somebody, and this one not been maintained.
Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Armenia shows a thin set of sub-pages. There are traces of some sort of attempt to have a monthly "editions" structure as was the fasion for portals in 2006–08, but this does not seem to have been sustained for more than one or two months. What we're left with is:
Portal:Armenia/Did you know, where the last new addition was in 2013. . Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this six-plus-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section.
Portal:Armenia/Armenia news has had sporadic update over the years, with periods of flurry interrupted by periods of neglect (see history). For example, a dose of updates in 2008, then nothing at until 2015. All the currently-displayed content is from 2017.
Unsurprisingly, this still-born relic was one the portal selected by portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH) for conversion[4] in January 2019 to a full-automated format which drew its selected articles list solely from Template:Armenia topics. Unfortunately, the whole automation thing was mistaken, because it simply made the portal a redundant fork of the navbox. Most of the newly-created navbox-clone portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups. In April 2019 this portal was reverted to a pre-automation format.[5]
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has been almost entirely neglected for 13 years, so it has certainly failed to attract large numbers of maintainers. In January–June 2019 it averaged only 24 daily pageviews. That is slightly more than the abysmal median for portals, but only 1/265th of the 6,418 daily views for the head article Armenia.
Like many portals, this one is a failed solution in search of a problem. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors. A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article. And in this case, the portal is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Armenia. The portals could theoretically be improved, but portals don't need one-off burst of enthusiastic tweaking they need ongoing maintenance, which takes lots of maintainers. And after a decade, we have the evidence that this topic simply doesn't attract those maintainers, so it fails WP:POG. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a portal about a country, so it's a broad subject area by definition. Yes, it may have little activity because of the systemic bias of Wikipedia, but we try to counter it, not reinforce it. The portal needs expansion? Then fix it! The link to WP:NOTCOMPULSORY clearly misrepresents the policy, which clearly says "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." Cambalachero (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do try to actually read what I wrote, before you reply to it. I linked WP:NOTCOMPULSORY precisely to clarify that I was not to making demands of other editors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read what you wrote, and also the policy. Your argument is basically "Delete it because nobody is expanding it", which is against what the policy says. Cambalachero (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero, you falsely accused me of misrepresenting WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I challenged that claim, and I am sad to see that your reply sidesteps that misrepresentation. So you have chosen to be are the sort of person who is happy to falsely malign others and to leave those slurs uncorrected even when challenged. Shame on you.
"Delete this portal because it is abandoned junk" has been the rationale endorsed for deleting many hundreds of the abandoned junk portals which the portals project has left lying to around for a decade to waste the time of readers. WP:POG explicitly 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" ... and this is permitted WP:DEL#REASON #13 says "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace". So your assertion that this contravenes policy is simply wrong. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with Cambalachero on that we are talking about a country which is broad in scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero and Knowledgekid87: POG is very clear that being arbitrarily assessed as a "broad subject" is insufficient. A portal must also be "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". The 13-year history of this portal shows that it is not likely to attract readers and maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want a rationale? Very well. A country has a national history, culture, politics, military, geography, economy, society, etc; the sum of all of the is quite a broad topic. More so for Armenia, whose history goes back to the ancient times. Cambalachero (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero, that is all entirely true, and also utterly irrelevant.
The undeniable fact of all that history and so on has been equally true at every point in the last 13 years since the portal was created. And the clear evidence of the last 13 years is that it has not been enough to attract the large numbers of readers and maintainers which are required by policy to make a viable portal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a time limit on how long something needs to be out there for it to be a "viable" portal? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concurring with analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. I urge those who think that certain levels of regions should have portals to discuss at WP:POG2019RFC. I have been urging the supporters of regional portals to propose language, but all that they seem to do is whine. Write the definition. In the meantime, delete without prejudice to a new portal that does not use subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, WP:SUBPAGES remain allowed on English Wikipedia for portals. The "Allowed uses" section on the page states, "Portal subpages—for Portal-specific templates and content.". North America1000 06:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – No prejudice against future re-creation of a curated, maintained portal with an adequate amount of content. The topic itself meets the WP:POG criteria for topical broadness relative to the amount of coverage it has on English Wikipedia. See Category:Armenia and its subcategories for an overview of available coverage about the topic. North America1000 06:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NA1K, it is utterly extraordinary that your comment makes no mention or acknowledgement of the fact WP:POG explicitly ties the question a topics' breadth to readership and maintainers. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
As you know, evidence was presented at MFD that this portal has neither readers nor maintainers, but you plough on as if the guideline didn't exist or the evidence had not been presented. This section of the guideline has been drawn to your attention many dozens of times, yet you plough on as if it did not exist.
What on earth is wrong with you? What are you trying to achieve by continually misrepresenting both the guideline and the discussion?
Your campaign of deceit and misrepresentation is is completely transparent, and it is shameless. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I went ahead and commented-out the News section of the portal, since the content is outdated at this time. North America1000 06:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:TNT. An excellent opportunity to create a portal with new concepts.Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guilherme Burn: Yes, a new portal from scratch would be feasible, hence my "No prejudice against future re-creation" comment above. Another idea is to simply improve this existing portal, which would preserve the links to it (see Pages that link to "Portal:Armenia). Otherwise, the links will likely be deleted by a user using Auto Wiki Browser, and a new portal creator would have to re-add them later, which is very laborious and time-intensive, as well as a monumental waste of time. North America1000 16:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guilherme Burn: I don't know, but you are welcome to post your opinions. For more context, see this example diff (and the subsequent discussion) where I made a request for the nominator here to retain portal links for another portal that was deleted. They just continued to delete the links after my request anyway. So, if this portal is deleted, it appears that the links will then be deleted along with it, quadrupling the work involved in a re-creation of this portal. This obviously serves to deter users from re-creating a portal, and if it were to be re-created without the addition of links to it, it would likely receive low page views, thus qualifying for deletion again. A truly unnecessary vicious circle that impedes content creation. Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia. North America1000 17:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guilherme Burn: I have no doubt that with less than a day's work, it would then be possible to create a new portal which is massively better than this. However, please note that an one-off makeover is not a solution. Portals are not viable unless they generate large numbers of reader and maintainers, and a one-off makeover simply restarts the path to rot and decay.
In this case, we have clear evidence from the last 13 years that this topic fails WP:POG, because the hard data of 13 years of non-maintenance and low readership is that this is NOT a topic for which a portal is "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
That's why this is very explicitly not a TNT nomination; it is a straightforward nomination to delete.
It is sad (but completely unsurprising) to see the serially mendacious @North America misrepresenting the discussion on my talk page about deleting backlinks.
NA1K could, if they had chosen, link directly to my reply. Instead NA1k choose to link only to their question and to give a false summary of the discussion.
NA1k deliberately misrepresents the discussion by failing to note that the context was NA1K's intention to re-create a newly-deleted page which would be subject to WP:G4 speedy deletion, and the closer's refusal to endorse NA1K's desire to simply ignore the MFD consensus.
The substantive issue wrt to backlinks to portals is that leaving them in place clutters the tracking categories which are used to detect errors in portal linking. I have probably done more than any other single editor to create and maintain links to portals, and I remove the redundant links precisely to facilitate that work by removing the false error reports which they generate.
NA1K is well aware of this. However, because NA1K is a shamelessly deceitful serial liar, they chose not to mention that when replying to GB. The liar NA1K instead chose to try to deceive GB by misrepresenting my cleanup work as some sort of disruption.
As to NA1k, their intensely and serially mendacious conduct becomes ever more despicable. NA1K approached me on my talk, and I engaged in civil dialogue, taking the time to explain my actions despite NA1K's persistent assumption of bad faith. In this reply[6] I explained why I see the removal of backlinks as a necessary maintenance task.
NA1K replied to that comment, but did even acknowledge that I had explained why I was removing the backlinks. If NA1K had any concerns or disagreement about my explanation, they could and should have responded; but they didn't.
Instead of continuing the discussion there, NA1K has now posted here, intentionally misrepresenting my actions and my reasons, and linking to their own post in such a way that my response is not visible without considerable further effort.
Let me blunt about this. The sort of calculated mendacity in which NA1K is engaging here cannot be mistaken as accidental; the misrepresentations are too severe, too calculated and too persistent to be accidental. They happen not by error or oversight or even by incompetence, but as only a part of a deliberate, sustained smear campaign by the serial liar NA1K to malign my good name and to achieve by deceit and misrepresentation what NA1K has not been able to achieve by open consensus-building: the retention on Wikipedia of a vast collection of abandoned junk portals which readers do not read and which editors don't waste time maintaining.
NA1K's web of lies, deceptions, distortions, misrepresentations, subversions and strategic omissions is a despicable way for any human to behave in any context. NA1K's despicable conduct here will not earn them fame or cash, which are the common motivations elsewhere for such abysmal conduct. But even in this anonymous cash-free space of Wikipedia editing, the ethics revealed by this liar-admin NA1K is the ethical framework of the fraudster or confidence trickster. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000: I believe this space is not ideal for this discussion, but I would like to emphasize two points. 1 - If we not maintain portals about a historical country like this and maintain portals for each institution, city or war of English-speaking countries, it is better to end all portals. 2 - There is no direct evidence that link to the portals in the articles increase their visualizations, P:NUDE is an example of a newly created portal, linked in only 60 articles that is in the top 50 of pageviews.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guilherme Burn:WP:ENDPORTALS was closed with a result stating, "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time.". North America1000 19:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the serial liar NA1K well knows, but chooses not to mention in this play of their mendacious game of selective quotation, WP:ENDPORTALS posed a simple binary question of whether to immediately delete the entire portal namespace: Should the system of portals be ended? This would include the deletion of all portal pages and the removal of the portal namespace.
The answer to that crude binary question was no. A less deceitful editor than NA1K would refrain from quoting the closing statement out of context. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@@Guilherme Burn: I agree that incoming links are a poor indicator of portal page views. I noticed this most starkly when I linked about 100,000 categories to Portal:Years, and found that it produced no detectable increased in the abysmal pageviews for that portal.
You are of course quite entitled to your view that we should either have portals for all of a certain set of topics, or delete the lot. Personally, I think that's mistaken, simply because the evidence of the last 13 years is that hundreds of the portals which fall into that set have attracted neither readers nor maintainers. It seems to me that portals which fail to add value, or which serve factual errors (as so any abandoned portals do), degrade Wikipedia, and waste the time of readers and editors.
If you still think that we should consider that proposal, then why not open an RFC to propose it? But unless and until such an RFC is passed, what we have is a clear guideline that topics need to be likely to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. Do you agree that this portal has failed to do either? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – User:Guilherme Burn pinged me and asked me a question, so I provided a reply and some context. It is unnecessary to rewrite the entire discussion at BHG's talk page here, so I provided the initial diff of my query to the user, along with stating in parentheses above to also read "the subsequent discussion". Rehashing the entire discussion here is unnecessary; people can read. Curious how BHG doesn't demonize other !voters here who have stated a preference for the portal to be retained per its broad topical scope ("It's a portal about a country, so it's a broad subject area by definition", and "I concur with Cambalachero on that we are talking about a country which is broad in scope"). Furthermore, my comment is just that, a comment, it's not even an !vote. I think BHG needs to calm down, and certainly needs to stop bludgeoning comments I make with long tirades of personal attacks. I know fight bait when I see it, and it appears that BHG eagerly wants me to state, "I'm not a liar, I'm not a liar!", and then reply further based upon their WP:BAITING. No. I'll close by stating that there is no lying or deceit in my commentary here or elsewhere whatsoever. It comes across that BHG is unable to counter views that are contrary to theirs in a constructive manner, and instead resorts to ad hom attacking those they disagree with. North America1000 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer, As North America well knows, I don't "attack" editors with whom I have honest disagreements. When people discuss in good faith, I sustain my assumption of good faith.
However I do object to NA1K's sustained pattern of strategic mendacity, and per WP:SPADE I call it out for what it is.
It is notable that liar NA1K resorts once again to blatant lying, even in this note the closing admin. Here's one example: NA1K writes: comes across that BHG is unable to counter views that are contrary to theirs in a constructive manner. But as noted above, I did give a series of substantive, civil reasoned responses to NA1K's questions about removing backlinks[7]. My complaint above is that the liar NA1K chose not to mention that, and chose instead to misrepresent my position ad my actions.
Now NA1K responds to my compliant with another demonstrable lie. It takes an extraordinary level of mendacity to double down on a lie like that.
The only WP:BAITING here is NA1K's persistent and sustained lying about guidelines and about other editors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are attacking NA1K at least twice in your statement (belittling again with "x knows by now", and calling them a liar) which again is akin to WP:PASSIVE. I am not the only one who is bringing this up as an ongoing issue and it might eventually have to be addressed at WP:ANI. Please stop resorting to calling people liars and base your arguments on why they are wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained why it is wrong. NA1K's strategy of attempting to deceive other editors by repeating known falsehoods is lying, and per WP:SPADE I am calling it what it is on each occasion when NA1K deploys this strategy. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "after a decade, we have the evidence that this topic simply doesn't attract ... maintainers, so it fails WP:POG" is better reasoning than "It's a portal about a country, so it's a broad subject area by definition." (what definition is that even referring to?). DexDor(talk) 06:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some countries are broad enough subject areas for portals, but to extend that to argue "Every country is a broad enough subject area" is a faulty argument; see WP:WAX. (Unsigned comment by User:UnitedStatesianDexDor(talk) 14:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis. Nobody is maintaining it, and I don't see anyone volunteering to do so. Not every country needs a portal. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87 and Cambalachero's reasoning. It is about an entire nation with a rich history and sizable population. It is a broad subject area. Unfortunately due to mass deletion of portals the window of broad subject gets downsized to whatever has not been deleted yet. Next will be continents. --Hecato (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: the WP:ILIKEIT !vote by Hecato has no basis in policy or guideline. It entirely ignores 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". Per the detailed evidence above, the portal on this has attracted only trivial numbers of readers and maintainers for over a decade. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you are going on about, I did not say that I like it. I said it covers a broad subject area. Which it does. --Hecato (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hecato, I am sorry that you are having difficulty in understanding that one sentence of WP:POG. The issue is simple: POG requires that we don't judge "broad" by an individual editor's personal view of whether a topic is "broad". (That's the WP:ILIKEIT issue).
POG sets criteria for judging the broadness, viz. whether the topic is "likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". And this one demonstrably does not. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a broad subject area with a likelihood of attracting readers and maintainers. If broadness was just defined by the number of readers and maintainers, then it would just say "a portal needs to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers", which it does not say. The demand for broadness is just there to prevent you from making a portal about a subject area nobody cares about. People care about Armenia. --Hecato (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hecato, I think you should re-read the text. It does define broadness in that way, but couches it in likelihood rather than certainty.
The issue is not whether people care about Armenia. I think we can assume that at the very least, its 3 million inhabitants care about it.
The issue here is more specific. It is not about Armenia; it is about a Wikipedia portal on the topic of Armenia. And the evidence of the last 13 years is that they don't care about such a portal, just as they have not cared about the dozens of other country portals which have been deleted as abandoned junk. There is tons of evidence that the mere fact that the topic is a sovereign country does not bring any guarantee that the portal won't be left to rot.
The reason for this isn't complicated. Unmaintained portals are at best a waste of the time of readers, and all too often they actively mislead. The portal project's long-term failure to apply the guideline left us with hundreds of abandoned, almost-unread portals which degraded Wikipedia. The solution which the portalistas adopted for that was to automate the abandoned portals, but that process was roundly reflected by the community because the results added no value for readers. The automate portals were just bloated replicas of a navbox, which added precisely nothing to the navbox.
So we have already been down the path of "fix the abandoned junk". The portalistas don't have enough editors to fix it it, and their drive-by-automation was reverted. So we were left with a pile of abandoned junk with no solution. That's why for the last 5 months, there has been an ongoing process of removing this abandoned junk.
We keep stub and poor-quality articles because they are the actual content of the encyclopedia, and something on a topic is better than nothing. But portals are only a tool, a device for showcasing and or navigating the content which is stored in articles ... and if they fail in that aim, they have no purpose.
It very easy to say "improve rather than delete", but the reality is that after 13 years, there haven't been enough editors to maintain this one, and there is no evidence that this neglect is going to change. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you are trying to delete almost all portals except maybe a few dozen or so. What was the figure you said in the past, 90% or something? All of the automated portals of your arch nemesis Transhumanist (or whatever the heck he is called) have all been deleted at this point, have they not? You are way beyond that territory now. Who would want to improve the remaining portals if you are just going to delete all of them in a few weeks anyway? You call other people's work "junk" and "trash", do you even listen to yourself? We just fundamentally disagree about whether portals should exist at all. You would rather want them all gone except for a few grudgingly accepted exceptions. I on the other hand think they can be useful, so I want to save what can be saved. Your giant walls of text will not change that fundamental disagreement. --Hecato (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Classic deflection attempt, Hecato. You have no argument of substance so you try an ad hominen attack. This discussion is taking place within the existing portal guidelines. I accept the existing guideline WP:POG; the disgreement here is because you reject the existing guideline.
This is all quite simple. Hecato asserted above It is a broad subject area with a likelihood of attracting readers and maintainers.
The evidence of the last 13 years is exactly the opposite: it has attracted neither a large number of readers nor a large number of maintainers. Hecato can shout all he likes about whatever fantasy he chooses to believe, but the data is shows that is simply wrong.
If Hecato's chooses to become one of the portalistas who hope that persistent repetition of demonstrable falsehoods will change reality, that is Hecato's choice about who they want to be. But the data remains there for anyone else to see.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – Of course Armenia is a broad topic, Armenia has an ancient cultural heritage and the overall available coverage about the country is rich and extensive. See the category tree below for an overview of coverage of Armenia on English Wikipedia. I don't want this cat tree made shorter or hatted; people should be able see the available coverage, because 1) there it is, and 2) it serves to qualify this comment, as well at my comment above about no prejudice against recreation. Furthermore, don't forget to explore even more in the subcategories of those already listed, by selecting [►]. Thanks, North America1000 12:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the removed the category tree which NA1K posted, because it takes up a whole screenful, and disrupts the flow of conversation. It's quite sufficient to link to Category:Armenia. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NA1K, nobody is disputing that there is plenty of content there, so your expanded screenful of category tree is as irrelevant as it is disruptive.
The point at dispute here is quite simple. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
In this case, the portal on this topic has not attracted "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
Neither you not any other keep !voters has disputed either of those facts.
So ... given that POG requires a the topic to meet a test which this portal has not met for the last 13 years, what exactly is the basis of your demand to keep or recreate it? What exactly is the foundation in policy or guideline of your passionate determination to ensure that Wikipedia has a portal which editors don't want to maintain and readers don't want to read? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – I have restored the category tree accompanying my comment directly above (diff) that the nominator entirely removed (diff). I have hatted it, so now it's not taking up much space. Please do not edit my commentary. It is disruptive to make really ugly accusations against good-faith users, and then remove parts of their comments when they provide information supporting their point of view. I could have understood it being hatted, but being entirely removed is inappropriate. North America1000 14:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NA1K, I have removed the hatted section. It is entirely un-needed; a link is quite sufficient to establish the point you wish to make, especially since that point is not in dispute.
So i will ask ask again; What exactly is the foundation in policy or guideline of your passionate determination to ensure that Wikipedia has a portal which editors don't want to maintain and readers don't want to read? -BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer – Unfortunately, the nominator is now censoring my commentary (diff). A hatted category tree takes up little space on this page, is not "disruptive", particularly after being uncivilly berated herein, and was placed to support my commentary. Nominators should never be censoring other users' commentary or !votes at any XfD discussions. Since it has been repeatedly removed, and I won't take what appears to possibly be potential edit warring bait, please refer to the aforementioned category tree in my commentary now located at: [►] User:Northamerica1000/sandbox/Armenia category tree. North America1000 14:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NA1K, calm down. The only baiting here is your disruptive mendacity about policy, and your repeated attempts to disrupt of the flow discussion by posting over a screenful of data which can be viewed elsewhere and needs only a simple link.
There has been no attempt to censor you. A simple link displays all the data you want to display, without disrupting the flow of the page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per the rationales of User:Cambalachero, User:Knowledgekid87 and User:Hecato above. This portal can be improved, and it's possible that it gets low page views because users may go to the portal, realize that it does not presently have much content, and then not go back. Also, portals with lots of content that utilize the {{purge}} function to reload new content naturally get more page views, particularly in those with a bright, user-friendly layout that have high-quality, informative content. If not retained, a new portal could be created, hence my no prejudice against re-creation comment above in this discussion. Personally, I could vastly improve this portal in a few days, but there's no point in doing to now while it's being considered for deletion. It would be counterproductive and a waste of my time to improve it only to see it then deleted. North America1000 15:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NA1K, where is the evidence?
We have clear evidence that for 13 years this portal has failed 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".
NA1K asserts without evidence that a better built portal would attract more readers.
So NA1K's "keep" !vote is pure WP:ILIKEITunless NA1K can produce actual evidence that a rebuilt portal will attract both readers and maintainers.
Note that:
Neither NA1K nor any other editor has posted any evidence here in this discussion or anywhere else of rebuilt portal attracting a significant, sustained increase in pageviews.
a one-off rebuild by one editor is not evidence of the ongoing maintenance which a portal needs
NA1K does not actually offer to maintain the portal after their proposed drive-by update.
NA1K has identified no editor who has volunteered to maintain the portal
No discussion (as in one editor replying to another editor) has happened on its talk page since May 2017
This MFD has been notified on Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia/Article alerts since 1 August[8] and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Armenia since 1 August[9]. Two days later there is no comment on the project page, and no comment here by any editor identifying themselves as members of the project. Note WP:POG says "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal" ... but in this case we have an ex-WikiPProject.
In summary, the whole of NA1K's posts are counter-factual and counter-policy assertions, with precisely zero evidence to support them.
I urge NA1K to either produce some evidence, or to withdraw their !vote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop censoring my commentary as you did above in this discussion. Nominators at XfD discussions should never alter other users' commentary or !votes. I don't have time to monitor whether or not you decide to change my commentary in discussions. Then, after removing content from my comments, you interrogate. No. I'll let others respond instead. North America1000 16:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try to regain a grip on reality, NA1K. I have not censored you. I have not tried to censor you. Nobody has tried to censor you. Take a deep breath.
It is of course entirely up to you whether you decide to provide some evidence to support your assertions.
If you chose not to provide evidence, then your assertions and your !vote will remain as WP:ILIKEIT denials of demonstrable realities, and the closer will be obliged to attach little or no weight to your !vote.
It remains bizarrely fascinating that you will do just about anything to defend the existence of unread abandoned junk portals except quote the actual guidelines (rather than your imaginary guidelines) and provide actual evidence rather than counter-factual specualation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a portal on the country Armenia, clearly a broad subject area. Most popular meta-page related to Armenia: [10], more popular than outline, category and wikiproject combined. Improvements would be nice, of course, but the portal isn't hopelessly broken. Should this discussion end in deletion, could the closer explicitly state whether there is prejudice against re-creation of a portal here? —Kusma (t·c) 21:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: "Broadness" is a necessary but insufficient criterion. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Neither Kusma nor any of the other "keep" !voters has offered a single shred of evidence that 13 years of non-maintenance and low readership is likely to end.
And this is the non-misleading version of BHG's graph, not comparing the apples of portal space to the oranges of article space. It is well known that portals have far lower view numbers than the corresponding articles. Always has been like that, always will be. All of the meta-pages have their uses (we don't delete the category namespace because of low use), and the portal is a prettier reminder to come and work on Armenia-related pages than the wikiproject is. —Kusma (t·c) 06:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma, there is nothing misleading about a graph which shows the views in context. The only misleading is your omission of the context that readers simply don't use the portal, which is why nobody maintains it.
(If you want to propose amending POG so that "Large numbers of readers" is changed to "large numbers of readers by the abysmal standards of portals", then RFC is thataway. In the meantime, stick to the plain English meaning.)
Your comparison with the WikiProject is misleading because WikiProjects are for editors, not readers. And as noted above, that WikiProject appears to be defunct. "More active than a dead thing" isn't a great recommendation.
Your comparison with categories is highly misleading, because the category tree has many layers and many entry points. You chose only one of the categories relating to Armenia, but even considering only the first three layers of the category tree gives 2258 caegories, of which you measure only one.
So enough of these spurious comparisons with bogus comparators.
Your argument seems against portals in general, not this portal in specific. All portals have significantly lower views than the relevant main article, and that is fine. It is not an argument to delete the portal. You can say that it makes it pointless to work on portals, but this is a volunteer project, and people can choose to volunteer where they want. For example, the Armenia portal is more popular than the last three articles I wrote: [11]. So what? As long as a portal isn't embarrassing us, just leave it be. —Kusma (t·c) 08:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, it's not an argument seems against portals in general. It's an argument against portals on all except very broad topics, because unless the topic is very broad the portal attracts neither readers nor maintainers.
However, it is sad to see that you have have chosen to misrepresent this as my argument. The reality is that it has been part of guidelines since long before if had anything to do with portals. It is most un-WP:CIVIL of you to misrepresent it as my personal opinion.
I note too that you wholly miss the point when you write: You can say that it makes it pointless to work on portals, but this is a volunteer project, and people can choose to volunteer where they want. As you well know, in this case the problem is that for the last 13 years editors have been choosing not to volunteer their time to this portals. That is what is rotted, and that is why I have nominated it at this MFD. So that argument is a classic straw man, a bogus argument designed to distract attention from the long-standing guidelines and the facts of this portal.
This all comes down to something quote simple. Portal:Albania fails WP:POG because it is has neither readers no maintainers. You oppose the deletion of this abandoned junk without any evidence this will change., So why exactly do you want to ignore the established guideline and continue to lure readers to this unmaintained, abandoned junk? How on earth does that help anyone? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subpages
Collapse section not directly relevant to this MfD
User:UnitedStatesian asks what is wrong with the subpage design of portals. Perhaps the most serious problem is that the subpages are normally partial copies of selected articles. A correctable drawback is that subpages usually do not have proper attribution. This can be corrected by providing proper attribution in the edit summary that partially copies the pages. The fundamental problem is that the subpage is a snapshot of the page at a point in time, and is not updated. This results in national pages incorrectly identifying the head of state after he has been democratically replaced or overthrown. While Wikipedia should be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, few editors have the knowledge of how to update a subpage of a portal. The subpage architecture is dependent on specialized maintenance, and we have seen that subpages are not updated regularly. An additional issue is that subpages are subject to frequent vandalism. While they can be watchlisted, we have seen that subpages are a special target for vandalism.
User:Northamerica1000 says that the use of subpages is permitted for portals. That only means that the use of subpages is permitted. It does not mean that it is wise. Perhaps the policy on subpages should be written to deprecate the use of subpages for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The use of sub-pages in portals is multiply-problematic. They should be deprecated, and culled with urgency.
As Robert McClenon notes, they are static content forks which do not automatically update. So they rot. In my recent MFD noms, I have routinely found whole sets of subpages untouched for a decade or more, often serving wildly outdated info about BLPs. It is utterly shameful that the portalistas who clamour to keep abandoned junk portals show absolutely no concern for these BLP issues.
Sub-pages are hard for readers to identify and edit. And they are a massive vulnerability, because they can be watchlisted only individually (yes, I tested it). So for a portal like Portal:Cheshire, with its 250 subpages, that means 250 pages to add individually to the watchlist. Hardly anyone is going to do that .... so the overwhelming majority of portal sub-pages are watched only by their creator. That makes them a massive vulnerability. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced, because all of these issues can be addressed by use of the simple {{transclude lead excerpt}} template, which requires a one-time edit to the affected subpages. There are many left to do (and contributions from both of you would be most welcome: seems much better than proposing the deletion of an entire portal on the basis of something that affects just a subset of its pages - only 26 of Portal:Cheshire's subpages are bios., and not all of those are BLP's - and is so easily rectified), but the remaining task is certainly manageable (far, far fewer, for example, than other ongoing Wikipedia tasks such as the nearly 1 million articles left to be addressed by those of us working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions). I don't think the community would be convinced of your position either. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UnitedStatesian, it seems to me that you haven't thought this through. Suppose you decide to tackle Portal:Cheshire. You take the time to set up an AWB run to convert all 250 subpages (note: 250, not 26) to use {{transclude lead excerpt}}. Great; that does help, because those pages will now self-update.
But that's still 250 under-watched pages where anyone unaware of your goals, or minded for mischief, could replace the sub-pages with whatever they like. The new pages could trivial or irrelevant or scurrilous. They could revert to the old content fork format and write whatever they like. And while Portal:Cheshire is v well-watched by a diligent and conscientious maintainer, many portals are not watched. So changes like that have gone undetected for years.
The multi-subpage format might be safe from these risks if each portals had dozens of maintainers. But the reality is almost the inverse: it's more like each maintainer having dozens of portals.
This degree of vulnerability and complexity is unsustainable. It's just one of a bundle of relics of the era when it was assumed that we could make things infinitely complex because an infinite number of editors would appear to perform every task on Wikipedia.
The reality now is that Portal:Cheshire has more sub-pages (250) than it has pageviews in an average 2019 fortnight (17 pageviews per day X 14 days = 238). That's bonkers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "we need to delete a page because it could be vandalized" argument is what seems bonkers to me (seems like "the patient was sick, so we had to kill them.") Especially when combined with a "if these pages are vandalized, no one will even see the vandalism." argument. Again, I don't think there will be community consensus for any "delete all portals with subpages" proposal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That side-steps my analysis, which doesn't really help a discussion.
Especially when you leap from the sde-step to a mistaken assumption that I am proposing to "delete all portals with subpages". I AGF that wasn't a straw man, but for the record I would strongly oppose blanket deletion.
The sub-pages are not the patient. The patient is the portal, and the subpages are disposable clobber. Do you really think that a portal with 250 subpages is a good, sustainable design? Really? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just responding to your sentence "They should be deprecated, and culled with urgency." What part of that sentence did I misinterpret? UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By noting that it was preceded by a sentence specifically referring to sub-pages. Sub-pages can be culled either by deleting the portal, or by moving the transclusion code into the top page of the portal, so that the sub-page is no longer needed.
I wouldn't support deleting a well-used, well-maintained portal simply because it has sub-pages. In that case, best to rebuild the portal without sub-pages.
Ah, I understand your point now (though don't necessarily agree). I had thought the "They" in your sentence referred to portals, not subpages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unpleasantness
Collapse section not directly relevant to this MfD, please take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI.
It appears that there has been XFD-warring that runs the risk of starting an Armenian War, of which there have already been too many. It appears that User:Northamerica1000 tried to put an elaborate category tree into this MFD page in order to list all of the categories associated with Armenia, presumably to prove a "broad subject area", which isn't relevant anyway. It appears that User:BrownHairedGirl collapsed the category tree, and that User:Northamerica1000 began to yell censorship. Yelling censorship is usually a good sign that one is losing a content discussion. I usually agree with User:BrownHairedGirl on the substantive matters of whether portals are needed and I usually disagree with User:Northamerica1000 on portals, but in this case I think that they were both wrong, one for creating a grandiose category tree in order to overwhelm a deletion discussion, and the other in thinking that it had to suppressed, as if !voters wouldn't see that it was just a grandiose category tree. (At least, unlike one effort by NA1k to overwhelm a portal deletion discussion, she didn't insert transcluded numbered items that broke the flow of MFD.) Both of you!! A grandiose category tree doesn't prove anything, and for that reason is neither worth adding nor worth hiding.
What the tree shows is that there are many articles about Armenia, which in turn may be supposed to prove that it is a "broad subject area" that hasn't attracted portal maintainers or readers, and the articles that could possibly have been organized into a portal, and have been organized into categories, haven't been organized into am effective or workable portal in thirteen years. This portal is a white elephant portal, and a white elephant can't do elephant work because it is an albino that has to be kept out of the sun.
The claim has been made that every country is a broad subject area that should have a portal. I have invited advocates of a special policy for regional portals to write the guideline. In the meantime, this portal isn't attracting readers or maintainers.
Both NA1k and BHG were disruptive, the first for putting up a grandiose category tree and the second for hiding the grandiose category tree. That doesn't change the fact that this white elephant portal won't haul lumber.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, the category tree took up two whole screenfulls, and broke the flow of discussions. It was deliberately posted by NA1K in a expanded form, rather than leaving the reader the reader to expand if they wanted to. That was classic WP:POINTy disruption. and it was best reverted promptly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which NA1k has done in the past with similar grandiose lists. It wasn't necessary to revert it. It made the point well, which was that it was making a point disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys done viciously agreeing with each other? Your pointless recaps and babble take up more space than the actual category tree you have removed. At least the tree was making a point. Also do not make me dig up the giant tables Robert McClenon has posted in other MfD. --Hecato (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the thorough and well reasoned investigation of the portal by the nominator. This portal has been abandoned junk for 13 years. There is 13 years of hard evidence that this portal fails WP:POG's requirement that portals be about: broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. This has never been met in any form and there is no reason to believe it ever will be. That some find the history and culture of Armenia interesting is of no consequence to this discussion, which is about policy and evidence, not momentary bouts of WP:ILIKEIT desires. Given the 13 years of evidence that this is not a suitable topic for a portal, I am strongly against allowing recreation. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Think it may be time to address the bullying here. Not sure how we can get on the right track....but the fact we have editor after editor complaining about behavior we should address it.--Moxy🍁 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but again, this is not the right venue. --Hecato (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really think @BrownHairedGirl: should stop nominating portals for deletion until editors reach a consensus on how to proceed. Things normally work more smoothly when more editors are on board rather than going after portals at random. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that editors should resume discussing MFD nominations in accordance with portal guidelines. NA1K+cronies should desist from attempting to disrupt consensus formation by NA1K's campaign of systematic mendacity, and desist from complaining when the mendacity is challenging.
WP:CONSENSUS-formation depend upon editors discussing in good faith, and sadly NA1K's repeated blatant lies have poisoned the atmosphere of several recent discussions. I look forward to NA1K cleaning up their act, and I hope that Hecato and Moxy and KK87 will assist NA1K to return to honest discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly made portal.Catfurball (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
