Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination)

Portal:Schleswig-Holstein

Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All prior XfDs for this page: Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (2nd nomination) Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein (3rd nomination)

This is an outdated portal that receives low page views and has not been regularly maintained. While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions, as per WP:COMMONSENSE:

• This subject is arguably not broad enough to exist as a standard portal, as evidenced by the overall available content on English Wikipedia about it, which can be ascertained at Category:Schleswig-Holstein.
• In the first half of 2019, the portal has received a daily average of 6 page views, which for portals, is an inferior amount.
• Maintenance and updating is outdated:

• All except one of the portal's Article of the month selections derive from 2010, and were simply copied and pasted to new subpages in 2017.

• For example, compare Portal:Schleswig-Holstein/Article of the month/2010-12, which was created in November 2010‎ and Portal:Schleswig-Holstein/Article of the month/December, created in July 2017‎; they are identical.
• This effectively equates to only one article update having occurred, in 2017. This exception is Portal:Schleswig-Holstein/Article of the month/November, which differs from Portal:Schleswig-Holstein/Article of the month/2010-11.

• Two additional article subpages exist that are not being used, Portal:Schleswig-Holstein/Article of the month/2011-03 and Portal:Schleswig-Holstein/Article of the month/2011-05.
• Per the page's Revision history, the portal is not being regularly maintained or updated.

It is my understanding that an option exists for topically-related portals such as this to be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany, as has occurred with Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Berlin (see MfD discussion), so that said portals can be utilized by project editors for various developments to improve coverage of Germany-related topics. As such, my recommendation is for this portal to be deleted or moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or move to project space. This is a useful tool for improving and extending article coverage as well as a comprehensive navaid. Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete or move to project space. This too narrow a topic for a portal, which is why it has failed to attract either readers or maintainers, so there is no basis for its existence as a portal. If, as Bermicourt says, it is of use as a tool for editors, then it should be moved to project space.

If Bermicourt genuinely believes that the portal is a comprehensive navaid, then it has clearly failed. With trivial pageviews, it is clearly not helping anyone to navigate anywhere. It's not hard to understand why it has failed: it is on a standalone page. Navboxes work well because they are (or should be) transcluded on each article in their set, so that readers can navigate directly between articles; this standalone navbox lacks that convenience.

There is currently no Template:Schleswig-Holstein, and this portal could be used as the basis for building a navbox at that title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I strongly object to the nominator User:Northamerica1000's opening comments While WP:POG is now a failed proposal, it is still utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions.

WP:POG was delisted as guideline, and tagged as a failed proposal, because NA1K and other editors asked that be done. Having succeed in their objective, the result that its status now is solely as a document which has been rejected.

NA1K's absurd phrase schema for advisement is simply three words of pompous verbose folly which which amount to a near perfect synonym for guideline. This use of avoidably pompous words such as "advisement" (for "guide") and "schema" (for line) as a crude attempt to deceive other editors is just a yet another way in which NA1K is gaming the system.

The function of being utilized as a schema for advisement about portals and in MfD discussions is what WP:Guideline is for ... but POG is no longer a guideline.

It is not acceptable to have NA1K being so brazenly duplicitous here, by trying to have their cake and eat it. If NA1K wanted POG to be a document which could be cited as guidance, they should have supported its retention. But having achieved it delisting, NA1K should stop acting as if it was still a guideline.

NA1K's attempt to treat a non-guideline as an actual guideline makes a nonsense of the whole system of policies and guidelines. And the purpose of using POG here is very clearly an attempt to establish a precedent to bolster the bizarre and disingenuous stance which NA1K has adopted at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport. In that case, NA!K sneakily and stealthily rebuilt a portal into a massively POV structure, hugely biased towards NA1K's own country ... and part of NA!K's defence for their flagrant (and wholly unrepentant) breach of the core policy of WP:NPOV is that they were following POG, which they quote as if it was an actual guideline. In that case, even the sections of POG which NA1K used do not in any way point suggest the result which NA1K created.

This campaign of deception by NA1K is disruption is becoming outrageously disruptive. Just stop it, NA1K: if you get a guideline delisted, don't then cite it as a guideline ... and don't think you fool anyone by using by inventing a pompous fool's synonym for guideline: schema for advisement is like some sort of parody of bureaucratic word soup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have not cited the WP:POG page as a guideline. I opposed it being utilized as a formal guideline page per principle, because its lead was decided upon by one user in a unilateral manner and a WP:CONSENSUS never existed for it to be an official guideline page. Your theories about why I opposed it as a guideline page have nothing to do with this MfD discussion, and are also incorrect. Another user at MfD who it appears you are a wiki-friend of has also used direct sentiments from WP:POG relative to WP:COMMONSENSE directly below in this discussion (diff), and elsewhere, such as here, here, here, here and here, among others, but you have not criticized them. If you feel this way about the matter, you should advise everyone about it, not just me. Please stop derailing and disrupting discussions with your long walls of text. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• @NA1K, this is an encyclopedia, not a pantomime. So top acting the eejit.

You explicitly called POG a schema for advisement which is just a pompous form of words meaning exactly the same thing as "guideline". So you later statement that have not cited the WP:POG page as a guideline is plain old NA1K mendacity. Or in other words, it is yet another of NA1K's lies.

I have seen people tell lies before. But I have never before seen any Wikipedia admin foolish enough to do what NA1K has done here, which is to tell a bare-faced lie about words higher up the same page. You are an admin, NA1K, and you have obligations to uphold standards: so stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia with your lying and your faled attempts at deception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Unlike many of the toy portals by User:Bermicourt, the subject of this portal is a state, a first-level administrative subdivision of Germany. **However, its view rate is no better than some toy portals. The portal had an average of | 6 daily pageviews (which is noise) in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 799 for the main article.
  • The intended Portal Guidelines were never approved by a consensus of the Wikipedia community, and we have never had real portal guidelines. We should therefore use common sense, which is discussed in Wikipedia in the essay section Use Common Sense and in the article common sense. The portal guidelines were an effort to codify common sense about portals, and we should still use common sense. It is still a matter of common sense that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and will attract portal maintainers. (There never was an actual guideline referring to broad subject areas, and the abstract argument that a topic is a broad subject area is both a handwave and meaningless.) Common sense imposes at least a three-part test for portals to satisfy common sense: (1) a broad subject area, demonstrated a posteriori by a breadth of selected articles (not only by an a priori claim that a topic is broad) (the number of articles in appropriate categories is an indication of potential breadth of coverage, but actual breadth of coverage should be required); (2) a large number of viewers, preferably at least 100 a day, but any portal with fewer than 25 a day can be considered to have failed; (3) portal maintenance, (a) with at least two maintainers to provide backup, with a maintenance plan indicating how the portal will be maintained (b) the absence of any errors indicating lack of maintenance (including failure to list dates of death in biographies). Some indication of how any selected articles were selected (e.g., Featured Article or Good Article status, selection by categories, etc.) is also desirable. Any portal that does not pass these common-sense tests is not useful as a navigation tool, for showcasing, or otherwise.
  • Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Schleswig-Holstein shows that the Article of the Month is stuck at Pellworm. Further inspection shows that there is almost invisible code that chooses among 12 articles, based on the calendar month, so that the Article of the Month is stuck until German Christians observe Advent.
  • I intend to review portal deletion nominations by advocates of portals in the same way as I will review portal deletion nominations by critics of portals.
  • A very low pageview rate, not enough articles, and little real maintenance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a zombie portal, but it appears to have succeeded a previous portal that was not so much stillborn as miscarried. Keep the silver bullets and silver nitrate handy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)