Open main menu

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MFD)

Administrator instructions

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 this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion include:

Information on the processEdit

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Education Program:, Gadget:, Gadget definition:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Files in the File namespace that have a local description page but no local file (if there is a local file, Wikipedia:Files for discussion is the right venue)
  • 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 deletionEdit

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}}. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
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.
  • Proposed deletion is an option for non-controversial deletions of books (in both User: and Book: namespaces).

Please familiarize yourself with the following policiesEdit

How to list pages for deletionEdit

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}}
for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
If the nomination is for a userbox, please put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the {{mfd}}, as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox.

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.

or

{{subst:md1-inline|{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}}
if you are nominating a userbox in userspace or similarly transcluded page.
  • 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.
  • 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:MFDWarning|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 Portal, please make a note of your nomination here and consider using the portal guidelines in your nomination.
  • 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 instructionsEdit

XFD backlog
  Apr May Jun Jul TOTAL
CfD 1 23 52 47 123
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 2 0 6 15 23
FfD 0 0 5 5 10
AfD 0 0 0 7 7

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

Archived discussionsEdit

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

Contents

Current discussionsEdit

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.

July 19, 2019Edit

Draft:Samit HotaEdit

Draft:Samit Hota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft has no chance of passing review, with the only available sources that mention the subject being user-generated or self-published. Could perhaps be speedy deleted as a hoax, but I wasn't sure it was quite that bad. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

July 18, 2019Edit

Draft:James BanderEdit

Draft:James Bander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The sooner we remove this the better, tho there is no speedy criterion applicable. It would of course be A7 in article space DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. –MJLTalk 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - It has already been rejected once, and it wasn't resubmitted after the first rejection. I don't know why it was rejected a second time. This looks like Reject and G13 would work. Yes, it's crud, but it doesn't need MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 17, 2019Edit

User:LisaKacholdEdit

User:LisaKachold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Kim Bruning/Lisa Kachold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Total WP:NOTAWEBHOST/WP:NOTHERE problem. User's last edits to mainspace were in 2009 and yet she's been updating this page thoroughly for years. ♠PMC(talk) 02:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Kachold might be a relevant discussion to review in regards to the userpage. –MJLTalk 03:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the user page and the version in another user's space. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The history of the editing of these two copies of this resume/BLP is "interesting" because they are also edited by User:Obnosis, who appears to be an alternate account for User:LisaKachold (no idea whether legitimate or illegitimate) and logged out. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User has also edited as User:Lisakachold. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Very weak Keep the userpage User:LisaKachold, until attempts to fix the problem encounter resistance. Fix by blanking, or reducing the userpage substantially to something better matching a user with 17 mainspace edits. MfD should not be the first call when finding problems like this.
"Very weak" because the content appears to be a recreation of deleted content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Kachold.
Lisakachold (talk · contribs) then LisaKachold (talk · contribs) are indeed a nearly NOTHERE user. The userpage is a NOTWEBHOST violation, in that it presents way more information about the user than is proportionate with their contributions.
Delete User:Kim Bruning/Lisa Kachold per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Kachold. This looks like the deleted article. I can't see what it has to do with the highly respected User:Kim Bruning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 16, 2019Edit

Draft:Special Theory of EtherEdit

Draft:Special Theory of Ether (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Publication of original research. The article is based solely on contributions of a single collective author. WP:COI highly likely. Google search shows no peer discussion wtatsoever. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Doesn't need deleting yet, because drafts containing original research can be declined and rejected. However, I think that I have seen drafts about theories about aether at AFC in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    That wouldn't be surprising; "proving Einstein wrong" one way or another is a fairly popular notion in fringe circles. One tell that applies here is the obsession with experiments from long ago — the 1930s or 1880s — while neglecting the history of physics since then. XOR'easter (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason to rush deletion on this exact article in draftspace. Let this go through the natural life cycles for drafts. Also, there is no evidence for WP:COI being at play here AFAIK, so I don't see why it has been mentioned. –MJLTalk 03:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    I am pretty confident (as the AFC reviewer) that all the content is sourced, so WP:FRINGE can apply, but certainly not WP:OR/. –MJLTalk 03:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    It is obviously the author of the sources cited (or someone close) tries to publish their own research. Google search shows NOT A SINGLE independent publication. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exactly the sort of page for which the policy WP:NOR was written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NODEADLINE. ——SerialNumber54129 08:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • YESDEADLINE for fringe theories. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid WP:YESDEADLINE does not say what you thought it did :D :p ——SerialNumber54129 16:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry. Still, there is no reason to Wikipedia to be a scratchpad for fringe theories. WP:DRAFT says if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace. So, do you have any evidence this has a chance to become acceptable? How long, do you think, it can sit here? NODEADLINE says We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. Hoiw are we going to establish "potential significance"? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:FRINGE, will always fail WP:FRINGE. Giving it more time will not help it pass WP:FRINGE. The page creator is entirely uninterested in writing a page that is compliant with Wikipedia policies, and we are not a web host for ideas that have attracted no interest from anyone but the inventors themselves. It basically is Original Research, morally speaking, because there is a vacuum of secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:FRINGE. The authors seem to reinvent Lorentz ether theory which got some attention in the past, but "Special Theory of Ether" didn't get that attention. --mfb (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 15, 2019Edit

User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishNationalismEdit

User:Mender/Userboxes/BritishNationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure if it's good etiquette to renominate so soon after the last nomination, but I believe I have a jolly good reason for doing so. Since the last nomination, the essay WP:NONAZIS appeared. It that's even remotely reflective of consensus, then merely having this on your userpage could potentially lead to a block or other sanctions (although it doesn't specify a type of nationalism, people seem to assume that nationalism/nationalist without further context always means ethnic nationalism or racial nationalism). Adam9007 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - As explained in British nationalism, the ideology of this userbox can be either positive or negative, and we can keep userboxes that can be seen as promoting a mixed view that can be positive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: It's actually a huge relief to hear you say that: I thought it was just me being naïve. But as I said, many (most?) would assume (and indeed, have assumed) negative. I don't know what (if anything) the creator meant for this to mean, but I think the fact that it can be easily interpreted as a Neo-Nazi userbox (as I discovered at great cost to my reputation here) is reason enough to get rid of it. It can cause a lot of headache for those who use it to mean positive. Adam9007 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - British nationalism certainly has to be twisted to be neo-Nazi. Hundreds of thousands of British lives were lost in the fight against Nazism. The negative connotations that I see to British nationalism have very little to do with Nazism, and have to do with colonialism and with Ireland. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:A bit of a backstory: this userbox was deemed to be a white supremacist userbox by an admin (I won't say who, but another admin (again, I won't say who) agreed with him), who of course treated me as such. Even to this day, there are editors who seem to believe that I am a racist purely because I once had this userbox on my userpage. You see the problem with this userbox now? (the problem is only made worse by the WP:NONAZIS essay, and having this userbox can very quickly make you a lot of enemies (it's made me at least 2), which makes it an unsuitable userbox IMHO) Adam9007 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Zohra AmreenEdit

Draft:Zohra Amreen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:MohammadAwais11/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTCV, WP:VANITY and WP:PROMO. ——SerialNumber54129 18:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Elbe-Elster LandEdit

Portal:Elbe-Elster Land (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At 3,178 lifetime page views this may be among the least viewed portals out there. This portal was last substantially edited the day it was created in July 2017. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Reader viewings are not important. Portals are not articles; they are designed 1) to assist projects in the creation and improvement of balanced topic coverage and 2) like categories, as navigations aids. They're not even in reader space, so they're never going to get huge numbers of views. Meanwhile I'm using these Germany-regional portals to expand coverage by e.g. reducing the number of redlinks. So you may not see edits to the portal, but you will see dozens of article creations/expansions thanks to the portal. Bermicourt (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral at this time, reserving the right to change to a Keep or Delete. This portal and this nomination are something of a naming problem, and a problem in general. The portal was renamed from Elbe-Elster to Elbe-Elster Land with the comment 'Move to match article title', but there are articles with both titles, and neither of the articles is about what is usually known in German as a Land, that is, a state of the Federal Republic of Germany. (The Federal Republic of Germany consists of 16 first-level self-governing administrative subdivisions that are comparable to states of the United States, India, or Australia or provinces of Canada.) Elbe-Elster has 6 pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019, and Elbe-Elster Land has 1 average daily pageview. The portal has 5 daily pageviews. (At least the portal doesn't have only a small fraction of the pageviews of the articles.)

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Elbe-Elster_Land shows very few real articles. It shows an index, Portal:Elbe-Elster_Land/Index, which consists mostly of red links. Most of the entries appear to be navigation templates that consist mostly of red links. Inspection of this list shows that it is mostly a list of requested articles. At least it doesn't consist mostly of partial copies of pages.

The comments of User:Bermicourt are useful and informative because they provide another rationale for portals, as a guide for the creation of articles. The lists of articles still consist mostly of redlinks two years after creation of the portal, which shows that portals either are not an effective way to promote the creation of articles, or are a very long-term solution to a need for articles.

Reader viewings are important. Portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers. This portal is attracting neither, but I am reserving the right to state a position on this portal in the next few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am unsure about this one, so I will think out loud here.
On one hand, it has utterly abysmal pageviews: 4 per day in the month of June 2019, which is barely above background noise.
On the other hand, it is one of number of portals created by Bermicourt which use an innovative format handily described by @Britishfinance (in a discussion on my talk) as mega-navbox.
This format has been adapted from the German Wikipedia, and it has several advantages over the dominant portal format on en.wp of multiple subpages:
  1. It doesn't use content forks
  2. It doesn't involve a forest of hard-to-maintain and hard-to-watchlist subpages
  3. It avoids the arbitrary selections of topics which is a problem of the subpage format
  4. It doesn't involve a lot of processor-intensive parseing of subpages an/or articles, which makes the other formats slow to load
  5. It does display upfront to the reader a full list of available topics, which the subpage portals don't
  6. It is well-adapted to the new technologies, especially preview on mouseover
  7. As Bermicourt notes, it also displays redlinks, which helps readers and editors identify gaps to be filed.
But, but ... BIG BUT ... readers still don't want it. All of these mega-navbox portal lovingly created by Bermicourt have pageviews at least as poor as the antiquated subpage-style portals.
Which brings me back to the fundamental problem with portals: readers don't want them. A whopping 94% of them have less than 100 pageviews per day, and only those prominently advertised on the main page top 500 views per day. By contrast, the head articles on the topics of most of them have at least 1,000 pageviews per day.
 
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
That in turn brings me back to my general conclusion about Wikipedia portals: that they are a solution in search of problem. The stats shout through a megaphone that readers don't want portals on wikipedia any more than they want portals elsewhere on the web: they use searching and links to find new content, and wikipedia provides excellent search and excellent cross-linking. Portals linger on because a small group of editors like creating them, rather than because they meet any reader need.
So ... much as I like Bermicourt and admire the diligent innovation here, I still just can't see why this almost-unused portal should be kept. Bermicourt's defence above is that the portal is an article creation list not primarily intended for readers. I find that unpersuasive: if it's not intended for readers, then it fails the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". If, as Bermicourt seems to be saying, this page isn't trying to do that, then it doesn't belong in portal space; it's a list which should be moved to project space.
Bermicourt, I am leaning towards delete. Do you want to add anything to dissuade me? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm somewhat late to the portalskepticism debate. Are you aware of any prior deletion discussions for portals that use the stripped down (German Wikipedia) format? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mark Schierbecker: this is the first I have seen. I wasn't following MFD very closely for a few weeks from mid-June, but apart from that I have been watching closely for the last 5 months.
@Bermicourt could probably give a definitive answer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Robert McClenon: Thanks for you input. Just to clarify: the German word Land is used in a variety of ways and not just to mean federal state which, properly, is Bundesland. Land is often used to describe a region with no clear administrative boundaries. I used to live in Celler Land around the town of Celle. There are dozens of regions called e.g. Osnabrücker Land, Bersenbrücker Land, Land Hannover, Berchtesgadener Land, etc., and there are articles on many of them at German Wikipedia.
The creation of numerous articles on a topic is, of course, a long-term activity - there is no shortcut, they take time! But if we delete utility portals like this, project editors will have no clue about the coverage and what's missing - it'll take even longer to achieve Wikipedia's aims. Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt, you make a good case for existence of these lists of links.
The bit I don't see is the case for putting the list in portalspace as what you call a utility portal. Since this is a tool for for the assistance of project editors, surely it belongs in project space? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding page views, see What links here and notice the minute amount of pages that link to the portal. To increase page views, visible links such as that at right need to be added to various related articles and category pages, etc. More visible links to the portal = more page views. It's very simple, without more visible links to the portal, people won't know it's there, thus leading to minor page views. This has been an ongoing problem with portals; people create them, but the wikification necessary to support them is not adequately performed, and then they're nominated for deletion per having low page views. Cheers, North America1000 14:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Was asked to comment here...when adding links to portals only the inline-version is seen in mobile view (now 60 percent of our readers) see WP:PORTL for how-to.... as of now not one incoming link is visible to most of our readers in this case.--Moxy 🍁 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @BrownHairedGirl:. I see your logic. I've never really considered the raison d'être for portalspace. My initial reaction is that could be a major reason why it has become so contentious. If the aim is primarily to showcase topics in an interesting and attractive way, encouraging readers to explore articles on Wikipedia, then they should be in mainspace. Or at least be as prominent in searches as their main article and well linked (as @Northamerica1000: suggests). If the aim is as a utility portal, then I agree it makes more sense to put them in project space or at least to link them in a far more comprehensive way from project space. IMHO only the navigation function pushes the case for portal space in the same way as categories are in category space. But to be truly useful as navigation aids, they need to be linked to all relevant topic articles as categories are. I guess, an argument for portal space is that it can be used for all 3 purposes at once, but only if well-linked. Bermicourt (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bermicourt, my first serious dealing with portals was 2–3 years ago, when I was adding portal links from category pages on a big scale. I was surprised to find that even portals which were massively linked as a result of my work still had atrocious viewing figures. For example, I created many tens of thousands of links to Portal:Years, but it remained almost unviewed.
That's why I supported outright deletion as the last-worst binary choice in the ENDPORTALS RFC. I could see that most of them weren't working. and since my preference of a massive cull was not working, wiping the slate clean seemed better than the status quo.
I'd probably have left it at that, if it wasn't for the advent of the automated portalspam, and the subsequent dramas as the community moved to cleanup after TTH.
In hindsight, the crucial event in all that saga was the narrow defeat by portalistas of the proposal to speedy delete all TTH's portal creations. At the time, portalistas thought that they secured a good outcome, and that the RFC closer had done them a huge favour by deciding that the almost 2:1 majority didn't amount to a rough consensus. But in practice what it meant was that the spam got cleaned up only because a bunch of editors spent time studying portals, and scrutinising lots and lots of them. I have personally studied well over a thousand portals in detail: their pageviews, their incoming links, the history of every page within them, and the editors involved.
And a bunch of things became v clear to those who did study the portals: with v v few exceptions, editors don't maintain portals, and readers don't use them.
So the portalista's narrow defeat of the WP:X3 speedy deletion proposal led to editors who were basically critics of the automated spam becoming experts in the portal system as a whole. And they didn't like what they found.
I think this is all good news, because the greater the number of editors who understand any given area of wikipedia, the better. But those don't want any cleanup don't like the scrutiny.
@NA1K says Example text. At MFDs, NA1k repeatedly says variants of "more incoming links! links bring readers!". That's true to some degree, but sadly NA1K's mantra remains wholly oblivious to the evidence that it actually makes very little difference.
Take for example Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Romanian football. There were over 4,000 links to that portal, including from nearly every single article on Romanian football, but it still got only 14 pageviews per day, and its content had been abandoned for years.
Or look at Portal:Cheshire. Diligently maintained, even polished by Espresso Addict, but it has still got only an average of 17 pageviews per day in January-June 2019. NA1K would suggest "more links", but actually there are lots of links to Portal:Cheshire: including 1521 from articles, and 244 from categories. Links from talk pages etc brings the total up to 5,830 links.
Look around other portals, and you'll find the same thing: see even where there are plenty of links, the pageviews are still abymsal. See that graph I posted above. That's the reality of how little readers use portals.
And please don't try the "search should return portals" thing again. When readers search for content, they should find content, which is in articles.
NA1K again notices part of the problem, when they write This has been an ongoing problem with portals; people create them, but the wikification necessary to support them is not adequately performed, and then they're nominated for deletion per having low page views.
But if you look at graphs of average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019, and see how 94% of them get less 100 pageviews per day and 84% get less than 50 views per day, then you can see that this is not a matter of a few portals being badly linked. It's that readers simply don't want wikipedia portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (and question). I do like Bermicourt's portals, and I find the concept of a "mega-navbox" a useful concept. There is no content fork issue, and because it is so focused on structured links, there is also less issue of stale/out-of-date content here that would detract from WP's image in the eyes of a reader (per many other portals). However, yes, per BrownHairedGirl, it seems that readers don't seem to use these types of portals either? I wonder if the answer is to get this portal content back into a series of structured mainspace navboxes (and a master navbox to navigate amongst them)? There is no navbox on the main Elbe-Elster Land article? It is a pity that navboxes don't seem to pop-up on all types of devices, as I find them very useful? Britishfinance (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (as a portal) with no objection to the info in the portal (e.g. lists of mostly redlinks) being moved to more appropriate namespace(s) e.g. Article/Wikipedia/User.  Portal namespace is the wrong location for to-do lists; the normal location for them is as part of a wikiproject. Placing to-do lists in a portal very much muddles the distinction between portals and wikiprojects and in practice such to-do lists on portals are rarely updated by anyone other than the portal creator and often rarely updated (e.g. this to-do list in another portal was last updated in 2009).  If portals are showcasing quality content (in a particular topic) (for readers) then there should rarely be a good reason to have a redlink on a portal; how often do you see a redlink on the main page? DexDor (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, but move the list to a WikiProject. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, this portal has attracted almost no readers, and no maintainers other than its creator.
Is creator describes its main purpose as being an aid to editors expanding coverage of this region, but that is a very task to the core principle of WP:PORTAL, viz that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". 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.
The mini-mainpage portal is probably a failed concept, but this mega-navbox isn't working either. Time to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Request that we put this on ice until the fundamental purpose of portals is decided. We've binned the spam portals, but we don't have consensus on what portals are for and our individual POVs keep driving our 'votes'. If the consensus is to delete this one, could we please at least move the content to e.g. project space so it can continue to be useful, rather than just flush it down the plughole? Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no reason this couldn't be moved to a project space as long as the active contributors to that project would host it. Which project(s) do you have in mind? Could this be done to all similar Germany miniportals you've created?
Fwiw I think portal supporters have been hindered by their own lack of agreement as to the purpose of portals. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bermicourt, I see no reason why we cannot do both tasks at the same time, i.e purge the most failed portals while also considering any proposals anyone may have about the purpose of portals.
I strongly disagree with your statement that individual POVs keep driving our 'votes'. What I see happening is that a small group of portalistas are ignoring the established policies and guidelines, in order to try to keep the portals which they like creating. It has been very clear at MFDs in the last few months that the "keep" !votes come overwhelmingly from a small crew of portalistas, i.e. those who create and maintain portals. There is almost no support for the portals by readers, or by people active in the WikiProjects which cover the portal's topic area. (Even the MFD where one editor engaged in a huge exercise of spamming and blatant canvassing is notable for its failure to attract more than a tiny number of defenders of the portal).
So we have a pointless loop where the few portals which are kept are being kept solely because the portal-creators want to keep them. I hope that in time, more of the portalistas will come to recognise the folly of this circle, and in particular the self-serving folly of NA1k's risible insistence that low page views meet the POG guidelines because all portals get low pageviews. (It's a bizarrely stupid stance, because it renders that part of the guideline pointless).
There is a long-standing guideline about the purpose of portals, in WP:PORTAL, viz that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". While other proposals may be considered, in the meantime we can continue to delete portals which fail that requirement, for the reasons set out in WP:POG: that they are unmaintained, and/or have too narrow a topic, and/or have low readership.
As above, I think that this index of mostly redlinks would make a great addition to a WikiProject. If Bermicourt wants to identify the WikiProject, then I will be happy to help do what other editors did for other portals: move the sub-pages to a new location, where they can be repurposed. The portal will still work, using the redirects, until it is deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too narrow a topic to support a long-term portal. There is very little sustainable content here, there is no sign of portal maintenance and upkeep, and all of the topics are covered by the much broader Portal:Germany. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Yes, per WP:POG pageviews and narrow topic are a reason for exclusion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

July 14, 2019Edit

Template:User Pope Francis IdolEdit

Template:User Pope Francis Idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unused userbox
  • WP:UBCR Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not nearly unacceptably religious. If you want to establish a religious connection, a mere connection, as a deletion reason for userboxes, I think you should take it to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes, and not risk reopening userbox wars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Unused"? It was used, and stopped being used when someone else altered the userpage. Deleting once-used userboxes for being unused amounts to an attack on template translcusion as userboxes in favour of substituted templates. Is that what you want to do? I don't think it is a good idea.
  • Keep, consider userfying for its creator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as a positive statement about a positive figure. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Unused political userboxesEdit

Template:User Partia Demokratike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User PDIU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Legality Movement Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Unused userboxes
  • Political userboxes; per WP:UBCR, quote Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • None are nearly unacceptably political. If you want to establish political support statements as a deletion reason for userboxes, I think you should take it to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes, and not risk reopening userbox wars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:United States Marine CorpsEdit

Portal:United States Marine Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page has seen some sporadic maintenance, however the page currently has had no maintainer since the last one was blocked for sockpuppetry. [1] A zealous maintainer is especially necessary when you don't have a randomized carousel of pages to showcase like on other portals (e.g. Portal:United States Marine Corps/biography/2019July is a big fat redlink right now on the page in question.)

Most importantly, blurb forks require attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. See outcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC) *Neutral at this time, pending a better reason to Delete or Keep – This portal is being viewed more than many portals, and is being maintained off-and-on, which is better than some, and has many articles. The portal has too many redlinks. The nominator's criticism of the lack of attribution, which is a technical violation of the Wikipedia copyleft, is technically correct but also applies to nearly all heritage portals, which have been implemented using partial copies of subpages. One view is that portals should be associated with an active WikiProject. The nominator appears to be associated with WP:WikiProject Military History and is proposing to delete this portal. The following metrics are based on an observation period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019.

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Type
United States Army 50 4430 88.60 1.13% Portal appears to have been last maintained in 2016. Originator last edited in 2014. 13 Military
Military of the United States 46 3246 70.57 1.42% Originator last edited in 2014. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. Many articles, and calendar of dates, but not currently maintained. 82 Military
United States Coast Guard 18 2642 146.78 0.68% Originator edits sporadically. Five biographies and one article. No articles added since 2011. 6 Military
United States Navy 43 4234 98.47 1.02% Originator inactive since 2014. No maintenance to equipment and biographies since 2010. 26 Military
United States Merchant Marine 7 832 118.86 0.84% Originator sporadic from 2012 to 2018, now inactive. No maintenance since 2008. 30 Military
United States Air Force 60 3909 65.15 1.53% Originator inactive since 2011. This portal has many subpages, but they do not appear to have been maintained since 2010. 100 Military
United States Marine Corps 39 4573 117.26 0.85% Many subarticles. Sporadic maintenance through June 2019. 100 Military

The major problems with this portal are that it is not being consistently maintained, as the redlinks show, and that it is based on a failed model which systematically disregards the copyleft. As User:Finnusertop notes, the attribution problem can be addressed by dummy edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I see that the sock-blocked "maintainer" was Emoteplump.
I don't know if @Mark Schierbecker is aware of history, but basically Emoteplump was a prolific sock who rapidly created lots of new portals and added themselves as maintainer of many others. The whole lot was mass-reverted.
So really, Emoteplump's involvement here was that they applied one piece of graffiti to this portal, and it was rapidly removed. So we can basically ignore that episode.
I note that all the related portals have already been deleted, for a variety of problems. Portal:United States Air Force, Portal:United States Coast Guard, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:Military of the United States, Portal:United States Army are all gone.
I will examine this one properly tomorrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the skinny on Emoteplump. I have amended my comment. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. The topic meets WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Also, see WP:RIA, which provides information about how to correct attribution issues. North America1000 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note deceit. NA1k continues their usual practice of trying to deceive participant in portal XFDs, by making an assertion based on a vague wave at WP:POG. As NA1K well knows, 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 has demonstrably not attracted "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers": no maintenance for years, and only 18 page views per day.
This is happening so often that it amounts to a campaign by NA1K of lying by deliberate omission.
NA1K is a Wikipedia admin, and is therefore supposed to act with integrity. This systematic lying is not a sign of integrity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000: Do you have any precedent of {{update}} working on a portal? It seems every time I see it on any part of Wikipedia it just sits there for years without anything changing, much like this portal already has. I know "there is no deadline" is a thing, but it seems far too often, people use that as an excuse to not do anything at all and hope the problem solves itself, instead of actually trying to do anything. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @TenPoundHammer: Thanks for the civilly-worded question, which I am happy to answer. The template is only the first step, and it's a new idea I had recently. Comes across as a way to at least let others know that a portal needs updating, rather than at an MfD discussion. Makes perfect sense really. Some deletion nominators have been complaining lately that when portals are improved after being nominated for deletion, it is done only to save the portal. However, this is not always the case. Tagging also makes sense relative to this notion as well, tagging before portals are nominated for deletion, in hopes that they are then improved. Regarding portal improvements, I have had some limited success in the latter steps stated in my !vote to solicit portal improvements particularly when posting at the Wikiproject Portals talk page. North America1000 03:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think that the nominator here is in the right and agree with the assessment, along with the precedent established by all other branches of the armed forces having their respective portals deleted. It would make no sense to keep this one after the others have all been subject to deletion, if nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If I can be my own devil's advocate, it is possible for niche areas to attract more maintainers than some broad topical pages. Our articles about models of aircraft are easier to write than say, aerial warfare at large. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I will sort of defend User:Northamerica1000 against the statement by User:BrownHairedGirl that NA1K is lying. I don't believe that the portal advocates are lying, that is, deliberately misstating facts, about what the portal guidelines say. The portal advocates have repeated the phrase "broad subject area", unqualified, so many times that they have actually come to believe that is what the portal guidelines say (if indeed they have force and are guidelines). In their sort of defense, I think that the portal advocates have misled themselves into thinking that "broad subject area" is what the guidelines say. Therefore they aren't lying, but have confused themselves by repeating the same phrase over and over again. The guidelines, as they have stood since 2006, refer to broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers. However, the advocates of portals have misled themselves into a cognitive trap. They aren't lying. That doesn't make their arguments in favor of keeping underutilized portals any good. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per precedent of the other branches of the military having their portals deleted as noted by @BrownHairedGirl:. @Robert McClenon: has made it crystal clear that the portal space is fundamentally flawed, leading to a myriad of problems that no one seems to be willing to fix. There's a reason that so many portals are being WP:TNT'd in the past few months; namely that they are so moribund and useless as to be entirely beyond repair. This one shows no sign of maintenance in years, nor any willingness from editors to try and repair it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - User:Northamerica1000 has made the case for deletion with the argument to flag the portal instead. The state of the portal was flagged I posted the metrics on Military of the United States were posted three weeks ago, and no one paid attention. There is nothing effective about applying a template to a portal. Portals have been categorized as being in need of immediate attention for months, and nothing happens, except that portalistas say that portals should be flagged rather than deleted. The design with partial copies of pages that are content forks is fundamentally flawed. Evidently the portalistas have some idea of what the value is of portals that they are failing to communicate, or they have convinced themselves of some unsound argument for the value of portals, such as that every broad subject area needs one. Anyone who wants to implement a portal using a modern design, such as a mega-navbox, can Request Undeletion, but a modern design can start from scratch without the need to use the old design. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This portal was created in a way that requires a lot of maintenance, which does not happen.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TanksEdit

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

Blurbs are plagiarized from their source article, unless someone can explain why forks would not require attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. The closing admin agreed with my interpretation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Military of the United States.

In any case the blurbs have not been substantially updated since when they were created in 2008/09. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: yes, those blurbs need attribution per WP:COPYWITHIN. But since this problem is easily surmountable with a single dummy edit per page, why are you seeking deletion? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Finnusertop, how does a dummy edit create attrbution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • See WP:RIA, "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied by the methods above, using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the {{copied}} template." North America1000 03:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral at this time, pending a stronger argument to Keep or Delete – This portal is more often viewed than some portals. In January 2019 – February 2019, this portal had 58 daily pageviews, as contrasted with the main article Tank, which had 1314 daily pageviews. (The January-February period is used because the portal was renamed in April, making collection of view metrics across the name change more complicated.) Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Tanks shows 13 featured articles, 10 featured battles, and 2 featured biographies. One of the biographies was added in 2019 by a portalista. None of the others were updated more recently than 2013. User:Finnusertop notes that attribution can be taken care of by dummy edits. Presumably another reason for deletion is that the portal is not being maintained except for one nominal update made in order to give the appearance of maintenance.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Procedural keep, without prejudice to a discussion of a deeper assessment. There are a lot of serious problems with this portal, but the nominator's reason is trivial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep – See WP:RIA, which provides information about how to correct attribution issues. North America1000 03:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete due to the failure to maintain the portal, pending a better argument in favor of keeping or deletion. The usual design for heritage portals with partial copies of subpages that are content forks is fundamentally flawed. This portal might be a good candidate for a better portal design. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep These issues can be fixed relatively easily by editing instead of jumping to deletion. --Hecato (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Tank" is "per se" a narrow topic and this portal is abandoned for ten years. Most of the portal content is redundant with the article.

The Wikiproject tank no longer exists.

Section Contents Last add of content
Introduction From Portal:Tanks/Intro 2008
Selected article 13 articles (12 already listed in the article Tank) 2009‎
Selected picture 7 pictures 2010
Selected biography 2 articles (none listed in the article Tank) 2008
Selected battle 10 articles (1 already listed in the article Tank) 2009
Selected quote Only 3 quotes 2008
Topics From Tanks Templates (All already listed in the article Tank)
Categories From tag categorytree

Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


July 13, 2019Edit

Draft:Ian FooteEdit

Draft:Ian Foote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tendentiously submitted without much improvement despite multiple Stop signs from different AFC reviews including myself. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - The draft should have been semi-protected after the first of the resubmissions by an IP. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and Extended-Confirmed Protect so that a draft or article can be prepared by an experienced neutral editor. The subject may be notable, but no amount of resubmission by IPs will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to mainspace article has plenty of citations and it appears the comments of the reviewers which asked for more citations and more evidence of big matches have been satisfied here. Seems to be notable for a referee. Are there any specific objections to moving it right now? If so, what specifically is missing from here? Gumlau (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is lacking news sources external to the association and missing the context of why one non-notable match has gotten so much attention. He only has general passing / routine mention. Gumlau, if you want to serve as the experienced neutral editor to WP:TNT this article, that would be helpful. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be at least 4 notable matches listed there (Under Career section). I'm happy to give it a edit. Is there a guide for notability as pertains to referees? Gumlau (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Gumlau if you can identify WP:THREE that will meet WP:GNG, then that would be good enough. The obituaries are borderline as they could be written by family members. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The IP-hopping submitter plainly lacks either the desire or the ability to find significant coverage in reliable sources, and their editing became tendentious some time ago. Remove the draft as one should remove an attractive nuisance. Salt the draft if recreated without improvement. Any autoconfirmed user can write an article on the topic in mainspace. If they do, and if it fails to establish notability, it will be deleted at AfD. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: this is the IP hopping editor who primarily edited the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:UranusEdit

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

This is another under-implemented, undermaintained, underviewed portal.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Uranus shows 912 articles, 3 biographies, and 9 pictures, short of the provision in the portal guidelines for 20 articles. (Biographies are articles. Pictures are not; they are images.) Two of the articles were added in 2014. There has been no apparent maintenance since 2014. During January 2019-February 2019*, there were 14 daily pageviews, which is less than half of a percent of the 3861 daily pageviews of the article in the same period. (*Note: User:BrownHairedGirl has recently changed the usual baseline period for statistics on viewing from January 2019-February 2019 to January 2019-July 2019. I am following her lead but am keeping data that has been collected using the older baseline.) Some portals have subjects that are thousands of kilometers, typically not more than 20000 km, from some editors and so may be close to other editors. The subject of this portal is billions of kilometers from all known editors. The following portals are literally out of this world:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Baseline Comments Ratio Percent Articles Notes Type
Venus Deleted in second mass deletion. Space
Neptune Deleted in second mass deletion. Space
Saturn Deleted in second mass deletion. Space
Outer space 13 1254 Jan19-Jun19 Portal has long history of renaming 96.46 1.04% Space
Uranus 14 3861 Jan19-Feb19 Last maintenance 2014. 12 articles and 3 biographies, all partial copies. 275.79 0.36% 15 A navbox would work better. Space
Jupiter 16 5908 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2011. Last tweaks 2017. 17 articles and 8 bios, all selected in 2011. 369.25 0.27% 25 A navbox would serve the purpose. Space
Mars 31 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2015. No maintenance since 2011. 209.55 0.48% 9 Space
Stars 34 3021 Jan19-Feb19 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintenance appears to have been 2015. 88.85 1.13% 44 Space
Moon 37 7516 Jan19-Feb19 Last maintenance 2014. 203.14 0.49% 14 Space
Solar System 65 6496 Jan19-Feb19 Originator last edited in 2007. Last maintenance 2011; news appears to be up to date, but that is view of Wikinews. 99.94 1.00% 30 Space

This portal, Portal:Uranus, does not provide any value added beyond what is provided by the lead article Uranus and by categories and links and via Template:Uranus.

Some editors have suggested that portals should be required for countries, and for states of the United States (and so possibly for states/provinces of Australia, Canada, and India). Should portals also be required for worlds? On the other hand, does Wikipedia is not compulsory mean that we do not Wait for Portal Maintainers, who may show up when Godot comes onto the stage? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Actually 12 articles. It is not difficult to expand this number. Ruslik_Zero 19:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:Ruslik0 - Biographies are articles, so that is 12+3 = 15. Maybe it may not be difficult to expand on the number of articles, but I can only count the articles that exist, not the articles that might exist in August. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nominator's analysis is correct: this is a long-abandoned, and almost unused portal. It is redundant to the head article Uranus, which in the first 6 months of this year got 263 times more views than the portal. (670,983 article views / 2,547 portal views).
These sort of numbers can be hard to grasp, so try a few analogies:
  • For every reader who viewed the portal, five coachloads viewed the article
  • the article got as many pageviews as there are people in Detroit. The portal got as many views as there are people in the tiny Edenville Township, Michigan.
 
Uranus pageviews Jan-June 2019
Or look at a chart of the pageviews. The portal's 0.38% share is so miniscule that it's barely visible
The 15 articles in the portal are all displayed by unsourced content forks. 73% of them are ten-years old:
So this is a set of mostly 10-year-old unsourced content forks, whose readership is tiny that if we round off its % share to whole numbers, the result is 0%. Yes, zero percent.
The lead of WP:POG says "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but in this case the creator hasn't touched any part of it since this edit in February 2011.
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so the creator is entitled to move on to other interests. But Wikipedia has no reason to keep this abandoned and unused annex. 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 portal has attracted no maintainers and no readers. Time to just delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The number 0.38% does not tell me much. How do it compare to other portals? Ruslik_Zero 08:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik, the overwhelming majority of portals I have checked are in a range from 1% to 0.05%, i.e the head article gets between 100 and 2,000 more views than the portal. This one is near the middle of that range. But in absolute numbers, this one is below even the abymsal median of 17 views/day for all current portals.
Narrow topic portals as a set have failed, tho per WP:POG they should never have been created in the first place. That's why, for the last few months, MFD debates has repeatedly deleted the weaker narrow-topic portals, like this one.
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 Uranus and its navbox.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Uranus, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Uranus, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value it might have had it 2009, the evidence ten years later is that is a failed solution to a non-problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment. I actually do not object to deletion of planets' portals. Portal:Solar System can serve this topic well without them. Ruslik_Zero 21:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 12, 2019Edit

Portal:Channel IslandsEdit

Portal:Channel Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Two more Crown dependencies have inadequately implemented, under-maintained, under-viewed portals, Portal:Channel Islands, and Portal:Jersey. The subject of the latter is a subset of the subject of the former, because Jersey is one of the Channel Islands. The following table shows regional portals in the British Isles of which Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Notes Articles
Jersey 3 2880 960.00 0.10% Originator edits sporadically. No maintenance since 2013. 10
Channel Islands 11 1960 178.18 0.56% Originator inactive since 2015. Last maintenance appears to have been 2014. 16
Isle of Man 12 4691 390.92 0.26% Originator last edited 2012. No apparent maintenance since 2012. DYKs are dated April 2013. 2
Northern Ireland 20 5898 294.90 0.34% Originator blocked in 2007 for sockpuppetry. New maintenance in April 2019. 8
Wales 28 6270 223.93 0.45% Originator edits sporadically. Last substantive maintenance appears to have been 2011; tweaks since. 58
Scotland 43 7555 175.70 0.57% Originator inactive since 2018. Maintenance in 2019. 194
England 54 10499 194.43 0.51% Originator inactive since 2007. No maintenance since 2011. 24
United Kingdom 126 26054 206.78 0.48% Originator inactive since 2009. Very large set of articles. 347


Neither of these portals has the 20 articles that are stated as the minimum by the portal guidelines (if that document is a guideline). Neither of these portals has 20 daily pageviews, and so they are not attracting the viewers that are called for in that guideline. Neither of these portals has 1% as many views of the portal as the head article. Neither of these portals appears to have been maintained after 2014, although that guideline specifies that a portal should be about a broad subject area that will attract portal maintainers. If the page being referenced is not a guideline, then Use Common Sense or Ignore All Rules applies. They cannot exactly be subsumed into Portal:United Kingdom or any subordinate portal because the Channel Islands, for historical reasons, are not part of the United Kingdom. (They are not part of England, which is that part of the British Isles that was conquered by William the Conqueror, because they were inherited by William the Conqueror.)

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Channel_Islands displays 8 selected articles and 8 selected biographies, but they have not been updated since 2014. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jersey displays 5 selected articles and 5 selected biographies, but they have not been updated since 2013. Neither of these portals offers any navigational advantage over the head articles Channel Islands and Jersey. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete both per nominator. In the last few days had done a preliminary analysis of both, and added to to my MFD todo list. I am relived to see that Robert has beaten me to it with his usual detailed analysis. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikiedia main page requires huge amounts of work; it is mainatined 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. In each of these cases, the portal is massively less useful in every respect than the head article. So even if someone wants to claim that WP:POG is not a guideline, this pair fail the long-established description of the purpose of portals.
Just a few quick notes to add:
  • Delete (both). I am a Jerseyman and Channel Islander, but I didn't know these existed. The stats show that I am not the only one. These are no longer maintained and add little value. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indian Premier LeagueEdit

Portal:Indian Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal, almost entirely unchanged since its creation in 2012. Fake DYKs, massively outdated content forks, and all redundant to the head article Indian Premier League, which is vastly better both as a navigational hub and as a showcase for content.

The portal was created in June 2012‎ Vibhijain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whose last edit anywhere on en.wp was in 2015. Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said[2] "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance" ... but that didn't happen here: Vibhijain's last edit to the portal was in October 2012.[3] The extent of subsequent abandonment is so severe that @MJL tagged the portal in April 2019 as "under construction". MJL rightly self-reverted, because nobody is actually doing any construction; but MJL had correctly identified that the builders are needed.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Indian_Premier_League shows what initially appears to be a not-too-bad set of sub-pages, with a total of 19 articles. That almost meets the WP:POG minimum of 20. However, scrutiny reveals the extent of abandonment of this farm of unsourced content forks:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page requires huge amounts of ongoing work; it is maintained by several large teams of busy editors who diligently check and re-check every submission . A mini-mainpage also needs lot of ongoing work if it is going to value over the head article. In this case, there has not even been cursory updating, and the result is that the portal is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Indian Premier League.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, this portal umainatined since its creation 7 years ago. Readers have stayed away too: in January–June 2019, the portal averaged only 11 pageviews per day, which is only half the abysmal median of 17 daily views for all portals in that period. By contrast the head article Indian Premier League averaged 9,056 daily views in the same period. In other words, the head article got a massive 827 times more views than the abandoned portal.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this links to Template:Indian Premier League, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Indian Premier League, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value it might have had in 2012, it has now been abandoned for longer than the IPL existed when the portal was created. This is a failed solution to a non-problem. Time to delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Vajrayana BuddhismEdit

Portal:Vajrayana Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal with very low views, whose last significant modification was extensive rewriting 5 years ago by a warmongering sockpuppeteer. Redundant to the head article Vajrayana and the sidebar navbox Template:Vajrayana, and to Portal:Buddhism.

The portal was created[6] on 6 April 2008‎ by Emishi (talk · contribs). Since 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said[7] that "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance" ... but that didn't happen here: Emishi's last edit to the portal was on 11 April 2008, only 5 days after its creation, and they haven't edited at all since 2012.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Vajrayana_Buddhism shows a modest set of subpages, with five selected biographies, five selected articles, three selected concepts, three selected deities. However, closer examination shows that all but three of these sixteen pages is a content fork last heavily edited by a sockpuppeteer:

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, this the only significant maintenance to this portal in the last 11 years has been the warmongering sockpuppeteer Aethelwolf Emsworth's rewriting of unsourced content forks. Readers have stayed away too: in January–June 2019, the portal averaged only 9 pageviews per day, which is only half the abysmal median of 17 daily views for all portals in that period. By contrast the head article Vajrayana averaged 845 daily views in the same period. In other words, the head article got 92 times more views than the abandoned portal.

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 Vajrayana and its navbox.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Vajrayana, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Vajrayana, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Whatever potential value it might have had back in 2008, it is now a failed, sock-hacked solution to a non-problem. Time to delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sadly, Christianity and Buddhism are too often brought into discredit by badly behaved disciples unworthy of the great founders. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal, I've never heard of this branch of Buddhism before. To me there is only one Buddhism religion.Catfurball (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

July 11, 2019Edit

User:Drsjpdc/Stephen J. Press3Edit

User:Drsjpdc/Stephen J. Press3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft of deleted article Stephen J. Press / Dr. Stephen J. Press. Last edited in 2010 and the editor has been blocked since 2014. Also: User:Drsjpdc/Stephen J. Press. -- Geniac (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Old businessEdit

July 11, 2019Edit

Wikipedia:Editor engagementEdit

Wikipedia:Editor engagement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Even before it was completely obsolete, it was a bad fit for Wikipedia. (I said so in 2013, too.) It belonged on metawiki. atdt (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Totally obsolete and irrelevant, and we are not the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • No, the trends observed then have continues, so not obsolete but worse; and obviously screamingly relevant. Is your reaction coming from some WMF hate thing? Understandable if yes, but not a good basis for decision making. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I don't 'hate' the WMF although I will admit to being one of its regular critics. I just wish it were more transparent, operate more professionally, and show some respect for the thousands of volunteers who provide them with their raison d'être. I don't let it cloud my judgement.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, not hate, more like frustrated and annoyed with. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal. It has a graph that hasn't been updated since 2009, and has an average of 3 daily pageviews. Oh. Wait a minute. That isn't a d$%@ portal. Delete it anyway, as per nominator and Kudpung. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needlessly destructive of history. There is nothing here that should not have existed, it is just old and in the wrong place. Deleting some old things makes holes in the history and makes the known history unreliable. This is Wiki, fix it. Transwiki to meta, and keep the history available being a WP:Soft redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. When a page of this sort is defunct it is archived for posterity. You think the future is going to start in the future. Common human attitude, we got nothing from the past because they are evil and stupid. This project was about participation in, and study of the wider project. Don't delete that! Please. ~ R.T.G 14:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: It's reasonable to collate all technical changes like this together, so I put (a transwiki copy of) it on MediaWiki.org: mw:Editor engagement. Obviously it's for the local community to decide how it wants to dispose of your version. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Jdforrester (WMF), en.Wiki is not a dumping ground for time and money wasting Editor Engagement Experiments (E3) team or any other departments. This is your (WMF) version, indeed it was written almost entirely by a diversity of salaried employees, all who have long since moved on, or been blocked, banned, or desysoped by the community. Please see my comment above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The Editor Engagement and Editor Engagement Experiments teams worked on the software for: New Pages Patrol, Echo (Notifications), GuidedTour, Getting Started, Thanks, WikiLove, Campaigns, and other research and projects. They tried to use this page, and the other local linked pages, for talking to and informing editors on their homewiki (partially because Notifications didn't exist back then). Yes, it's an outdated documentation page, and was never ideal (is anything?), but there's no need to be rude about it. Sadly, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, content was already useless at the time of creation, no history worth preserving. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Tag as {{Historical}}, since the page provides some background about the evolution of Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 14:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • TransWiki - the obvious solution - has already been done (see above), so the Wikipedia version can now safely be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{Historical}}, as suggested by North America. Server space is cheap, and breaking incoming links is a bummer. Colin M (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect. per above. It's historical documentation that can now be viewed at mw:Editor engagement. It clearly relates to Wikipedia, and I see no reason to break incoming links. Cheers, –MJLTalk 03:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 10, 2019Edit

User:MurpleEdit

User:Murple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTWEBHOST. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Italian FascistEdit

User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Italian Fascist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Francoist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Gr8opinionater/Userboxes/Neo-Fascist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive userboxes that violate WP:POLEMIC (“Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing”) and WP:UBCR (“Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive”). Advocacy of fascism does not seem appropriate on this encyclopedia, and similar fascist infoboxes have been deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 14:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:POLEMIC and a violation of WP:UBCR which says Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Britishfinance (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fascists are not welcome here.Susmuffin Talk 17:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slippery slope – are we going to delete all political userboxes? No, per RfC. wumbolo ^^^ 20:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - If we're going to allow political expression on userpages, we shouldn't be in the business of deciding which political views are acceptable. –dlthewave 22:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. ♠PMC(talk) 04:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. While there is no bright-line, I believe this is solidly in violation of WP:UBCR. There is no slippery slope any more than deleting PROMO articles is a slippery slope, and we don't have to host these userboxes any more than we need PROMO and non-NCORP articles because we have articles on companies. Alpha3031 (tc) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Political expression must be treated universally. Either ban all kinds of political expression or allow them all. Merely listing ones political stance is not a polemic. Offense is subjective and cannot be the standard for a decision like this. --Hecato (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The slippery slope or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument doesn't fly. WP:IAR does. Get this shit off Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/TotalitarianEdit

User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Totalitarian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive userbox that violates WP:POLEMIC (“Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing”) and WP:UBCR (“Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive”). Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - This pushes the limits of free expression. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again per WP:POLEMIC and a violation of WP:UBCR which says Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Britishfinance (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This userbox promotes a controversial form of government. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a slippery slope argument to delete only some political userboxes, and a RfC concluded with strong opposition to deleting all political userboxes. wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - We allow political userboxes that are totally unrelated to encyclopedia editing. I object to the idea of banning all of the "controversial" ones. –dlthewave 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. ♠PMC(talk) 04:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Anti-Nazi National SocialismEdit

User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Anti-Nazi National Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Austrofascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/Iron Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:UNSC Trooper/Userboxes/IRAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Offensive userboxes that violate WP:POLEMIC (“Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing”) and WP:UBCR (“Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive”). Advocacy of fascism does not seem appropriate on this encyclopedia, and similar fascist infoboxes have been deleted. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think that one box is listed twice. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I don't see any advocacy of violence. I find anti-Nazi National Socialism to be incomprehensible. National socialism was never socialistic, and I don't know what it means except Nazism. The other userboxes, like the userboxes opposing fascism, look like expressions of undesirable ideologies that are not necessarily violent and are on the margins of free expression. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete on further thinking. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:POLEMIC and a violation of WP:UBCR which says Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. If we start allowing such userboxes, where do we finish? Britishfinance (talk)
  • Delete Fascists are not welcome here. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a slippery slope to delete only some political userboxes, as an RfC explicitly opposed deleting all of them. I'd support restoring the other fascist userboxes that have been deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I disagree with the idea of vetting which political views are permissible to express or requiring that these views be "comprehensible". Advocating for a fascist/nationalist viewpoint in our articles is a Bad Thing per WP:NONAZIS, but a simple userpage banner is OK. –dlthewave 22:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Nazis deserve no platform. Not anywhere and certainly not on a repository of knowledge like Wikipedia. We must do absolutely nothing to make nazis or their supporters feel welcome here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS. ♠PMC(talk) 04:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Vipul/Notre Dame Philosophical ReviewsEdit

User:Vipul/Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been lingering in Vipul's userspace since 2013 and I still cannot find anything showing that this meets either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Time to pull the plug: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Question - Does User:Vipul have a comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep in the absence of a reason to delete. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete from draft or user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't allow users to keep unpublishable drafts in their user space forever. This has been around for more than six (6) years and there is still no indication that this ever could become a viable article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

July 9, 2019Edit

User:Yozzer66/userboxes/AntifaEdit

User:Yozzer66/userboxes/Antifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Supersheep/Userboxes/Antifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Life in General/Userboxes/Antifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These infoboxes are not just an endorsement of Antifa, but an endorsement of political violence. Per WP:POLEMIC and WP:UBCR, this is not really conductive for building an encyclopedia and I don’t find this acceptable, as threats or endorsements of violence are not generally a good thing here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Yikes. My own opinions aside, I would agree with this nomination. If this was worded like, This user supports antifa and thinks all Nazis should be blocked from Wikipedia. Then we'd have a case that could be made this doesn't endorse physical violence. Tbh, users are free to do whatever they want relative to the laws of their jurisdiction, but let's avoid taking those kinds of measures here; a project to build an internet encyclopedia. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 17:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    This !vote was only for the first one. I make no comment about the others. –MJLTalk 20:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    All three inboxes have the same text and similar images. Toa Nidhiki05 02:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    That isn't true. User:Supersheep/Userboxes/Antifa is completely broken and even links to a disambiguation page. I also don't think it's as much of a problem for User:Life in General/Userboxes/Antifa. You say these are explicitly endorsing politically violence, but I'm not seeing it here. See my comment below. The context matters. –MJLTalk 13:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (typical of all three related nominations). The userbox is neither polemic nor does it endorse violence, despite the statement in the nomination to the contrary. "This user supports antifa" is not a statement that attacks or vilifies groups of editors, persons, or other entities, and opposition to fascism is not divisive or offensive. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is inaccurate. If the infobox just said “this user supports Antifa”, there is no threat or endorsement of violence. However, it also says it supports them in “combating fascism in both word and action”. That is an explicit endorsement of political violence, which violates WP:UBCR (“Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive“) Toa Nidhiki05 18:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
That most certainly is not an "explicit" endorsement of violence. I don't view it as even an implicit endorsement of violence; the phrase "and action" is too general to draw such a conclusion. Direct action is not synonymous with, or even a strong connotator of, violence. WP:AGF applies here. VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What direct action does Antifa do other than violence? If you want argue they engage in other forms of direct action like property destruction or harassment, I guess you can do that, but the former is illegal and the latter is either illegal or immoral and arguably a violation of Wikipedia policy. Regardless, how does this inflammatory and divisive userbox help the encyclopedia? There’s no actual benefit to keep this. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Doxxing, protesting (but like the Milkshaking kind), praxis, etc. –MJLTalk 19:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Protesting and mutual aid come to mind. I can't help but think this nomination may be partially rooted in ignorance. See WP:NOGOOD re "There’s no actual benefit...". VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hold off on the personal attacks, please. Entirely unwarranted here. I’ve said these violate WP:POLEMIC and WP:UBCR and the response has been generally quibbling over what “direct action” (a phrase the userbox does not use) means. None of this is a compelling reason to keep a userbox that is clearly inflammatory and not conductive to building an encyclopedia, which is why I said there has been no benefit given to keep it. It serves no value on its own and actually violates policies. Toa Nidhiki05 12:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Toa Nidhiki05: you missed the mark a bit. It's not combating fascism in both word and action; it's combating fascism in both word and action. The fact that there is an emphasize on the "and" part, it reads implicitly as something someone might otherwise object to. The context is key. –MJLTalk 19:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Action includes legal non-violent action, such as the counter-protesting at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which ended in violence that was entirely the fault of the fascists. I agree that usually antifa involves, at a minimum, provocation, but it can be in the Gandhian tradition; it just very seldom is. I do not like antifa, but its action is not necessarily violent. It is just often violent. Because of these subtleties, I can neither say Keep or Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have started bundling these three nominations, since they are all the same and should be treated as one nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    Comment - Thanks. Is there any way to close the other two and import their comments here? Toa Nidhiki05 20:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Toa Nidhiki05: As you created the other two, you can tag them with {{db-g7}}. – Athaenara 02:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    Done Toa Nidhiki05 02:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This MfD is apparently inspired by this ANI post. I do protest not being informed of this discussion (only saw it when trying to edit my userpage). And I do think the 37+23+45=105 users who display this userbox should be informed as well. Tsu*miki* 🌉 04:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The userbox is merely a positional statement, similar to other leftist userboxes we currently have. Conservative people would certainly argue that even a declaring oneself a socialist means endorsement to molotov cocktails, gulags and mass killings and the like. The "antifa" part in these userboxes only link to Anti-fascism in general, not to specific varieties of antivist groups. To conflate anti-fascism and direct action to violence only highlight an absurd amount of ignorance or misunderstanding on the subject, and to insinuate, without evidence, that contributors sharing the sentiment in theses userbox tend to be polemic and NOTHERE, would be an insult to all the 105 Wikipedians who chose to exercise their right to express themselves. Non-fascists view steadfast opposition to fascism as extremely offensive is a sad reality we live in. Tsu*miki* 🌉 04:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It’s not simply a political statement because it actively and explicitly endorses political violence. If these infoboxes simply said “this user supports Antifa”, it might be acceptable, but the fact it endorses violence is the problem here. The fact that many users have this infobox is irrelevant - it violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:UBCR. There is no reason to have this in an encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You're repeating your argument. You may need to read my comments and the keep and neutral !votes above again. To equate "action" - which entails from peaceful citizen protest, mutual aid, online activism and community defense to vandalism and physical altercations, all of which practiced by antifascist activists per article - to explicit act of violence, i.e. murder, lynching, gang violence, etc, is irresponsible and factually wrong. You're pushing an extremely dangerous false equivalence. This is no more polemical than infobox "I identify as a democratic socialist", you know, the kind that want to get rid of all planes, per US Republicans. Tsu*miki* 🌉 14:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: These boxes are stating support of a group widely accused of domestic terrorism. It's one thing to claim a general support of those who are speaking out against fascism (though what exactly is fascist seems to be poorly defind). It's quite another to support the actions of people who are willing to resort to mob violence, assault journalists etc. I think we would have no issue removing a "I support the KKK" box. This is no different. Springee (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Read the article. This is completely opposite to what experts and reliable sources said on the subject. How many people did antifa kill in the last five years? Isn't that zero? And how many Jews alone did white supremacists murder in cold blood in the same period? How many black people did KKK lynch? Those are actual acts of domestic terrorism. "Widely accused of terrorism" by some fragile white hearts I suppose. Tsu*miki* 🌉 14:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Your straw arguments aren't convincing. You are an editor who has an Antifa support box on your home page. Are we going to assume that your view on the subject is largely objective or biased? Springee (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I’d have no issue deleting more userboxes. In fact, the Totalitarian, Nazi, and Fascist ones should all be nominated for deletion as well. Our policies on userboxes are very clear on what is or is not acceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have nominated these fascist userboxes for deletion as well as these ones. Thank you for bringing these to my attention. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think the operant question has anything to do with whether or not violence is being suggested. It is a strident advocacy relating to a contemporary and contentious issue. I don't think our User pages should be used for such purposes. We share with others our individuality on User pages. Beyond that limited usage everything else represents a questionable use of User pages and is therefore open to revocation in a discussion such as this. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • That political infoboxes should be avoided is a reasonable position to take, but it's not the position advanced by the nominator and it's clearly a position held by a minority of editors (in this discussion, only by you), so I don't agree that it's the most salient question here. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The most salient question is what promotes collegiality and what causes arguments. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There even is an argument for deleting all political userboxes, but certainly one that supports a movement routinely involved in street fighting and which by definition opposes fascists or perceived fascists with militant means including violence and vandalism meets WP:POLEMIC and more broadly WP:UPNOT. Since the template uses the German-originated abbrevation "Antifa", it perhaps is of interest that the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution tracks the movement and has this the say about it in their profile Aktionsfeld „Antifaschismus“: The field of "anti-fascism" has for years been a central element of the political activity of far-left extremists, especially violent ones. Far-left extremists within this tradition only superficially claim to fight far-right activities. In reality the focus is the struggle against liberal democracy, which is smeared as a "capitalist system" with "fascist" roots. (courtesy of Tataral) --Pudeo (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I'm afraid that source isn't relevant. Contemporary American antifa share have no organizational connections with German counterparts, and antifa being opposed to liberal democracy also isn't supported by other reliable media sources and experts as well. And we weren't talking about particular nation variant either - the userboxes in question was clear that it meant opposition to fascism in general. This is distraction at best. Tsu*miki* 🌉 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    The template says nothing about "American Antifa". Antifa is primarily a movement originating in Germany. Is the so-called "American Antifa" fundamentally different from its German roots? I don't know, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence in support of that, and they've even adopted the same logo and the same rhetoric. There is a large body of expert literature that echoes the assessment of German authorities of this movement, so this is a very mainstream assessment. Antifa is certainly not equal to "opposition to fascism in general", it's a specific movement/ideology that brands non-fascists (even social democrats) as "fascists", in line with Soviet propaganda (cf Anti-Fascist Protection Wall), and that merely uses the word "fascism" as a misleading smear against people mainly for being opposed to communism and/or the Antifa people themselves. --Tataral (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Goes deep into WP:POLEMIC and a violation of WP:UBCR which says Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. Or, inverted, if we allow this, where do we stop? Britishfinance (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. Are Fascist and Nazi userboxes forbidden? They are arguably much worse, at least for Americans, as Americans not only took the same side as Antifa, they actually fought a war and killed Nazis, not just protested against them in the streets. (I am not justifying their violence in the streets, just their opposition to neo-nazis, fascists, and anti-democracy forces. The two sides are not equal. There are not "good people" on both sides.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    Open Nazis are basically forbidden from Wikipedia for obvious reasons and fascist/Nazi userboxes are deleted as they are found AFAIK. Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I fully support eradicating all the Nazi, fascist, Stalinist and totalitarian userboxes, but opposition to fascism, especially under the current political climate, is suddenly viewed as propaganda is beyond me. Even if we're talking about the American antifa movement, the ADL clearly states that "it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose."[11] Editors who endorse white supremacy must not be treated the same way as editors who is transparent about their opposition to fascism. Above slippery slope arguments aren't useful. Tsu*miki* 🌉 15:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I’m not keen on any user boxes along such lines, and I don’t like Antifa. But, if support user boxes like this are allowed; I’m not seeing where the line is or how this could cross such a line. Nelson Mandela’s organization committed far more violent acts than Antifa. And then he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides, Antifa isn’t even an organization and any “member” can pretty much define what they think it is. O3000 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Americans and their allies "committed far more violent acts than Antifa" to Nazis during the war. The two sides are not equal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. No more violent than the fascism userboxes, and it's a slippery slope to delete only some political userboxes. wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We aren't targeting all political userboxes. I'm guessing that we're only after those which espouse violence. That would also include communism. What about that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't dismiss Social conflict theory, Monopoly on violence and the rest to have some baseless consensus. What about the many countries that have capital punishment, torture, excessive use of force etc. as measures against political foes? What makes direct action/revolutions different? wumbolo ^^^ 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Violence isn't really the only problem. Contentiousness is the problem, however difficult that may be to define. But any definition of contentiousness has to take into account the nature of this project. We are here to collaborate on the compilation of documents (articles) that are composed of on-topic and reliably-sourced material. That requires seeing from the perspective of an editor with whom we are engaged in a fierce disagreement. How can we see from another editor's perspective if they are using their user-page to promote a view with which we disagree? OK, you can see from their perspective, no matter what. But it makes it more difficult to do so. Strident user-boxes in general are counterproductive to the collaborative environment that we should want to foster. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The issue here is not antifa as such, but antifa userboxes, and this discussion is demonstrating that these userboxes are not only divisive but are encouraging stupid comments (as well as wise comments) and are polarizing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears they only cause disruption. Same would go for userboxes declaring a person is a fascist. In this context they are the same. PackMecEng (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep If people want to humiliate themselves by posting such userboxes, let them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with you even though we are weighing in with opposite opinions on the outcome. To me it is so wrongheaded that any person with such sentiments displayed on their User page should want to remove those sentiments. To me it is showing that they do not understand that an aim of Wikipedia is to collaborate to write well-balanced articles. Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Observation: I don't like Antifa, for the same reasons that (in historical retrospect) I don't like the brownshirts of the 1920s-1930s: their vicious tactics and the injuries they inflict on the vulnerable and unarmed targets they choose. The massive dishonesty, which intellectuals daintier than I may prefer to call irony, in being fascist while claiming to be anti-fascist beggars belief.
I toyed with the idea of creating a userbox with a presidential pic and the statement that this user likes DJ Trump, but I haven't pursued it because Wikipedia is neither a means of recruitment nor a social forum: it is an encyclopedia.
I probably care less than I should about whether or not some editors choose to post userboxes like these. All that said, I'm moved neither to welcome such userboxes nor forbid them. but the temptation to say something here was irresistible. – Athaenara 10:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:User Donald Trump and Template:User pro-Trump already exist, but you're free to make another I suppose. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Arms & Hearts: That's interesting. I could also work up a userbox for this user suddenly began liking chocolate and coca cola after years of being indifferent to both and her health hasn't suffered a bit, but it seems as disconnected as the political ones from our encyclopedic mission here. – Athaenara 11:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
My reluctance is to single out this one editor for this one user-box because as I see it the problem is pernicious. It manifests itself in many different ways. Strident user-page messages only exacerbate the argumentation that is part and parcel of hammering out articles that truly embody a neutral point of view. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per rationales by several users, including WP:POLEMIC and WP:UBCR. The userbox is certainly "inflammatory or divisive", as Antifa is a far-left movement that is described as extremist e.g. by the government of Germany and that is noted for using violence and branding non-fascists they disagree with (up to and even including social democrats) as "fascists". --Tataral (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although userpages technically aren't supposed to be used for any form of promotion or advocacy, we generally tolerate a certain level of personal expression through userboxes, short bios, etc. A long screed advocating violent overthrow would cross the line but a simple userbox is well within reason. Since the proposal to ban political userboxes failed, we should not be in the business of deciding which political views or groups are permissible. According to the User pages guidelins, "'Acts of violence' includes all forms of violence, but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence."dlthewave 22:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Traditional African religionsEdit

Portal:Traditional African religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Almost-abandoned and almost-unread mini-portal. Small set of unsourced content forks, and a fake DYK section. Redundant to the head article Traditional African religions, the sidebar Template:Traditional African religion and host of navboxes on sub-topics.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Traditional African religions shows a modest set of sub-pages, including:

  • Portal:Traditional African religions/Selected article/1, /2, /3, /4 and /5 are all unchanged since their creation in 2015, apart from a page move in 2019. They are just a set of 4-year-old unsourced content forks.
  • Portal:Traditional African religions/Selected biography/1, /2, /3, and /4 are all unchanged since their creation in 2015, apart from a page move in 2019. They too are just a set of 4-year-old unsourced content forks.
  • Portal:Traditional African religions/Did you know dislays the same items as when it was created in 2015[12]. . 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 four-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trvia section. In any case, I have checked all the items listed here, and none of them is derived from WP:DYK. So this is't a stale DYK page: it a fake DYK page, which has from the outset been just a trivia farm.

The portal's creator did some formatting tweaks in July 2019[13], but 4 years after creation the portal remains under-sized and outdated.

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 practice, this portal has neither: it has not attracted any maintainers apart from one return vist by the creator, and it has also been shunned by readers. In June 2019 the portal got only 16 page views per day, while the head article Traditional African religions got 846 daily views. So readers prefer the head article by a ratio of 53:1.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Traditional African religion, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Traditional African religion, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portal fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game. Editors can use their time much more productively by expanding the head article than by putting further effort into this superflous portal. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep — This is a silly nomination. We might as well close down the whole portal system since you are on a mission to delete every portal on English Wikipedia with your mass nominations - especially those relating to the African continent. This is the only major religion with over 100 million followers in Africa and the diaspora that you would like to remove from the system. This topic is very verse and I and others have been contributing and updating it. I have even been updating it in the past few days as you can see in its contribution history and sub-pages. I have not even finished yet. This nomination is driven by a particular agenda. It is not neutral. And your wording is rather aggressive. We either keep the portal system or delete everything. We cannot have nominations driven by agendas. Do you actually edit and help out with portals yourself? I mean, really helping out by updating them and doing some major works? It is very easy to nominate and delete but rather difficult to actually work on them. If I come across an article or portal and find that it has issues, I take the time to fix it rather than nominating it for deletion. Do you do the same? Further, in your haste to nominate, you left me a red link on my talk page with no link to this discussion. You also did the same on the portal's page. I had to do a search just to locate this deletion discussion. Absolutely terrible!Tamsier (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, that's a nasty pile of falsehoods and ABF, Tamsier.
I will take them one at a time:
  1. This is not a mass nomination.
  2. The overwhelming majority of my MFD nominations of portals do not relate to Africa.
  3. I have made no mass nominations ... relating to the African continent. Please do not tell lies.
  4. I have nominated portals for other religions where they fall below POG standards. The claim that I am targeting Africa is a malicious smear designed to falsely portray me as a racist. Shame on you for that vile personal attack.
  5. The link on you talk page is red simply because of the order in which pages Twinkle makes its edit. The link works.
  6. You propose that We either keep the portal system or delete everything. That is your own binary absolutism, unsupported by policy or consensus. There is no sense in a binary choice between deleting even the good portals or keeping even the crap ones, and after ~4800 portals have been deleted at MFD in the last 4 months, it is very clear that community has consistently rejected your idea.
  7. You claim that This nomination is driven by a particular agenda. Absolutely true: like all my other portal MFDs nominations it is driven by the simple agenda of upholding the portal guidelines, by deleting portals which do not meet it standards. If you sincerely believe that there is something wrong about upholding long-established guidelines, then please make a prompt complaint at WP:ANI. Otherwise, stop hurling false allegations.
I get that you created this portal, and that creators sometimes don't like their creations being deleted. But please have the courtesy to discuss the substances of the nomination, and stop trying to derail the discussion by smearing me with malicious falsehoods.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl, and concurring in most of her reply to the personal attack by User:Tamsier.
      • I will also take issue with the claim: "This is the only major religion with over 100 million followers in Africa and the diaspora that you would like to remove from the system." It is true that traditional African religions have more than 100 million followers in Africa, but are not the only religions with that many followers in Africa. There are more than 600 million Christians and more than 500 million Muslims in Africa, and there have been followers of those religions since the times of their founders. Joseph of Nazareth took Mary, Mother of Jesus and the infant Jesus to Egypt for safety. Muhammad sent followers to Ethiopia. Besides, BHG is not proposing to remove traditional African religion from Wikipedia. Only the portal, a little-used navigation mechanism, is proposed for deletion.
      • The geographic portals that have been deleted have mostly been about places in the United States, United Kingdom, and India.
      • I will agree with User:Tamsier and disagree with User:BrownHairedGirl on one useless detail. He writes: "We either keep the portal system or delete everything." Yes, parsing it very carefully. We can either delete everything, or keep a system that has portals, and we are keeping the portal system. It is individual portals that are being deleted. Therefore that statement is true but useless.
      • Any further personal attacks will be reported to WP:ANI and may result in sanctions. If you really believe that User:BrownHairedGirl has an anti-African or Eurocentric agenda (which is nonsense), you may take evidence to that effect (other than empty claims) to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.
      • The religion portals that are currently nominated for deletion include Portal:Baptists, Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church, and Portal:Wicca. Other religion portals that are not African have already been deleted.
      • The portal lists three associated portals.

The four portals are shown in the following table:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Type
Traditional African religions 13 768 59.08 1.69% Only substantive maintenance since 2015 appears to have been 2019 page move. Portal renamed from Portal:Traditional African religion. Religion
Spirituality 26 1235 47.50 2.11% Originator inactive since 2005. 5 articles, last added in 2016. 5 Religion
Africa 62 5923 95.53 1.05% Originator edits sporadically. 78 Continent
Religion 79 2899 36.70 2.73% Originator inactive since 2011. Has 85 articles and complete calendar, but no sign of maintenance since 2009. 85 Religion

None of the portals listed are well-maintained.

Portals usually are not well-maintained. This portal is not attracting readers either. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Don't indulge me with your silly posturing and threats. There was no personal attack, but a statement made in reference to BHG's nominations. I even made it clear right from the get go that she wants to see the end of the portal system before making any reference Africa - which I have checked before making reference to Africa. Besides, she would not be the only one who wants to see the end of the portal system if we are to go by previous portal discussions. Therefore, Africa or no Africa, she and many others wants to see the end of the portal system. I don't even have to justify myself to you. In any case, BHG is quite capable of defending her position as the nominator of this portal and many others - which she did above, although I totally disagree with most of her points. Therefore, she does not need a spoke person like yourself to come here and start throwing your weight around. Further, 2 of the three religious portals you've referenced are denominations of Christianity which has a portal of its own and is not under the threat of deletion. Name me one traditional African religious portal which has not been deleted and is not under the threat of deletion. And now the main Traditional African religions portal (the parent portal of all traditional African religions) is under threat and I can bet my life on it that it will be deleted by the end of this MFD - going by history. Furthermore, your useless table above is misleading. It does not take into account the sub-pages. Even the main page, never mind the sub-pages have have had some maintenance. Therefore, your statement that the "Only maintenance since 2015 has been 2019 page move." is false. Take a look at the contribution history and sup-pages for a clearer picture.Tamsier (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tamsier, you misrepresent my views on portals, but that's not the issue here. This is not a discussion about my views on all portals; it is about this whether to delete this one portal.
You continue to ascribe to me some sort of anti-African agenda, which is an unfounded malicious slur you would be well advised to drop fast. I nominated the portal for the reasons stated in the nomination, which are unconnected to the subject matter: they are because the portal does not meet the portal guidelines, and the head article does a much better job.
Your repeated attempts to personalise the discussion have the effect only of underlining that you lack any substantive response to the actual rationale for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment — I have updated the portal and its subpages. Hopefully the closing admin will take that into account before deleting the portal.Tamsier (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Meets WP:POG in terms of the breadth of coverage about the topic, and also keep per WP:HEY. The statement in the table above, "Only substantive maintenance since 2015 appears to have been 2019 page move" is now outdated. The portal has been significantly expanded. For example, the Portal:Traditional African religions/Selected article subpage was created on 11 July 2019 and presently has a total of 23 entries. The Portal:Traditional African religions/Selected biography was created on 11 July 2019‎ and presently has ten selections. Regarding page views (see What links here), what the portal needs is more links to it. More visible links = more page views. Also, we now have an active maintainer, which is yet another reason to allow time for the portal to be improved and expanded. North America1000 08:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a broad subject area and there is an active maintainer. Portals can improve and garner more views. I don't really see the point in deleting things of value, even if they do not attract many people who look at it (yet). Do we need to save a few kilobytes of hard disk space for the Wikimedia foundation? Hecato (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamsier, Northamerica1000 and Hecato. Portal has improved so much. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

July 8, 2019Edit

Portal:Evolutionary biologyEdit

Portal:Evolutionary biology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal.

Crrated in August 2007 by Sushant gupta (talk · contribs), whose latest contrib to wikipedia was in 2017, and whose last edit to this portal was in May 2008.[14]

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Evolutionary biology shows ten selected article pages, but they are nearly all unchanged for between 430 weeks and 587 weeks (i.e. 9 and 11 years).

Portal:Evolutionary biology/Did you know has had no substantive chnage since 2007.[15] The fcatoids there do not seem to be anyting gto with WP:DYK, but even if they are derived from that process, WP:DYK says "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section". This twelve-your-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section.

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 in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, an it has also been shunned by readers: in Jan–June 2019 the portal got only 33 page views per day, while the head article Evolutionary biology got 322 daily views. Note that the portal has been exceptionally well-advertised, with links from [from 16 navboxes] and from [portals], which is why its pageviews are a little above the abysmal median portal pageview count of 16 per day.

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 Evolutionary biology and with its comprehensve sidebar Template:Evolutionary biology and its even more comprehensive navbox Template:Evolution.

This abandoned portal is a broken solution in search of a problem. Time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per the analysis by BrownHairedGirl, possibly by feeding to dinosaurs. This portal lists 11 related portals, all of which are shown in tabular form below for comparison.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Type
Marine life 17 523 30.76 3.25% Originator inactive since 2009. Last maintenance appears to have been 2011. 16 Science
Biotechnology 20 2075 103.75 0.96% Originator last edited in 2014. 12 Science
Philosophy of science 31 734 23.68 4.22% Originator last edited in 2018. 40 Science
Evolutionary biology 36 353 9.81 10.20% Originator last edited 2017, but portal not maintained since 2008. 10 Science
Molecular and cellular biology 40 721 18.03 5.55% Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance 2016. 7 Science
Ecology 41 1903 46.41 2.15% Originator banned in 2008. Many articles and biographies, but no maintenance since 2012. 100 Science
Earth sciences 58 550 9.48 10.55% Recently reworked by Rockmagnetist. Has list-based design rather than subpage design. 24 Science
History of science 65 880 13.54 7.39% Last substantive maintenance 2007, but complete calendar of anniversaries. 31 History
Chemistry 93 2257 24.27 4.12% Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance 2014. 44 Science
Biology 94 2940 31.28 3.20% Last maintenance in 2015. 43 Science
Science 1132 4029 3.56 28.10% Last maintenance appears to be June 2018. 80 Main page linked

My conclusion from the comparison is, again, that portals in general are inadequately maintained. Creating portals may be fun, but maintaining them is work. As long as the maintenance-intensive architecture relying on subpages that are partial copies of pages, frozen in time, is used, we should be reducing the number of portals, probably greatly reducing the number of portals, because they are maintenance-timesinks. It would also be a good idea for those who like portals to redesign our portals and work on improved portal architecture, but that is also work, and it may be easier to whine. In the meantime, this portal can be deleted.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. the topic meets WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Articles typically receive more page views compared to portals, and to increase portal page views, more links to it can be added in various articles, etc. More visible links = more page views. This has significant potential to be expanded and improved. North America1000 08:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note deceit. NA1k continues their usual practice of trying to deceive participant in portal XFDs, by making an assertion based on a vague wave at WP:POG. As NA1K well knows, 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 has demonstrably not attracted "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers": no maintenance for years, and only 18 page views per day.
NA1K rightly observes that Articles typically receive more page views compared to portals, but dishonestly omits the fact that this precisely why portals are required to be about broad subject areas.
This is happening so often that it amounts to a campaign by NA1K of lying by deliberate omission. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K is a Wikipedia admin, and is therefore supposed to act with integrity. This systematic lying is not a sign of integrity.
  • Delete per nom's clear and sensible description. The best that a portal can do on such a topic is to recycle and stir about a bit; the resulting vacuousness is rapidly seen through by every visitor, bringing the whole portal system into disrepute. Major science articles like Evolutionary biology are far superior to any kind of jazzed-up portal, whatever their merits may be on non-scientific topics. Long overdue for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BiochemistryEdit

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

Static micro-portal abandoned since 2007. Note that it was named Portal:Metabolism until moved[16] to its current title in May 2019.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Biochemistry shows a tiny set of subpages, with only one Portal:Biochemistry/Selected article, whose text has not been changed since 2007.[17]

The lead of WP:POG says "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 one has not been maintained.

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 in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers, and it has also been shunned by readers: in June 2019, the portal got only 2 page views per day, while the head article Biochemistry got 1,378 daily views. (Update: the view counter wasn't working as expected. See full details at #biochemfullpageviews)

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But the Wikipedia main page works because it is the product of a lot of hard work every day by several teams of skilled editors; few portals get anywhere near the level of attention required to make them work. In this case, the head article Biochemistry is a massive enhancement on the portal. The head article facilitates navigation by a sidebar plus navboxes, and an embedded list; and because it is written is in summary style, it showcases the other key articles related the topic.

This abandoned pseudo-portal is simply a waste if the time of readers, and of any editors who link to it or may be tempted to tweak it. It's long past time to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – I concur with the analysis by BHG. This portal lists 5 related portals, so I have provided a brief comparison. The metrics listed below are for the period of 1 Jan 19 – 28 Feb 19, when the portal in question was named Portal:Metabolism, and the pageviews shown below are not as bad as those reported by BHG, but still do not justify the portal. Some portals are stillborn. This portal, based on its (renamed) subject matter, may be not so much stillborn as a failed experiment in alchemy.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Type
Biochemistry 20 3757 187.85 0.53% Originator edits sporadically. Renamed from Portal:Metabolism in May. Article views = 1527+2230=3757 1 Portal abandoned without any subpages. Science
Chemistry 93 2257 24.27 4.12% Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance 2014. 44 Science
Biology 94 2940 31.28 3.20% Last maintenance in 2015. 43 Science
Molecular and cellular biology 40 721 18.03 5.55% Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance 2016. 7 Science
Biotechnology 20 2075 103.75 0.96% Originator last edited in 2014. 12 Science
Medicine 102 2000 19.61 5.10% 100 Science

I am not nominating either Portal:Chemistry or Portal:Biology for deletion, and do not plan to maintain either of them, but traffic to the subject portal can be redirected to either of them as long as they exist. The portal architecture relying on partial copies for subpages is a failed experiment, but this is a portal that doesn't have the subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The driver for my moving the Portal to an obviously much broader topic was to see if the rename (along with the contemporaneous restructuring/revitalization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology) would drive more improvement and pageviews; I think seven weeks is not nearly long enough to give such a process time to operate and assess its results. Since there is no deadline, I would ask that discussion of this portal individually be postponed for 12 months. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @UnitedStatesian, there is no deadline, but there is also no policy of Waiting for Godot. After twelve years of abandonment, there is no sign of any maintainer, or any WikiProject wanting to take it on.
There is so little here that it would be a trivial matter of a few seconds' work to recreate the portal if anyone wanted to build something which actually adds value. The current portal is light years away from the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", and it is not fair to our readers to keep this pointless mini-portal for another year in the unevidenced hope that magic maintainers will magically appear, and that they will magically have the skills to overhaul a portal built on an outdated framework but lack the skills to build one from scratch using more modern tools. That's a deeply implausible proposition.
Most of the portals brought to MFD have never been assessed before, either at MFD or by any quality assessment process ('cos the portals project has never done any systematic quality assessment other than the defunct featured portals process). The community clearly does not have infinite resources to repeatedly reassess portals, and MFD should not behave as if there were an infinite number of editors willing to plough through the debris of a decade's neglect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I understand that User:UnitedStatesian appears to be trying to preserve as many of the remaining portals as possible and slow the rate at which portals are being deleted. However, their request to delay the decision on whether to delete Portal:Biochemistry is a good-faith misguided diversion. There are at least three problems with this portal. First, it doesn't have enough articles. It has 1 rather than a minimum of 20. Second, its architecture, like most existing portals, relies on subpages that are partial copies of pages, and this architecture is a failed experiment. Third, it doesn't have enough readers. UnitedStatesian is trying to address these problems by renaming the portal from Portal:Metabolism to Portal:Biochemistry, and by re-activating WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology. The renaming is likely to have some impact on the third issue, the lack of readers. The re-activation of the WikiProject is more likely to improve the viewing of Portal:Molecular and cellular biology than of Portal:Biochemistry. However, only real portal maintenance will address the first problem, the lack of articles, and even then the portal will have a flawed architecture. Nearly all of the heritage portals that are being discussed at MFD have the flawed architecture, so that we cannot and will not be deleting all of them. However, this portal has only one subpage, and renaming it is the equivalent to changing the name on the birth certificate of a stillborn child. I don't see the point to waiting three months or six months or twelve months to see whether readers will read a portal consisting of one subpage. Adding subpages to the portal would be more productive, but I would suggest that User:UnitedStatesian look for other portals that were actually started to improve. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Your understanding of what I am "trying to" do is incorrect, as should be evident by the number of portals that I continue to bring to MfD, along with my delete !votes on other nominators' MfDs. I played no role in reactivating WP:WikiProject Molecular Biology; that was other editors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment, primarily to User:UnitedStatesian – What I wrote apparently does not say what I meant it to say. That is, it is my fault that you misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant that, of the editors who have been nominating portals for deletion, you are now trying to preserve as many portals as possible. I didn't mean that you were defending portals in general. Some editors are. I meant that you are trying to slow down the rate at which portals are being deleted, as opposed to the portal fans, who are trying to stop the deletion of portals and are using empty arguments to that effect. I still think that you are wasting your efforts in renaming a portal with only one subpage and with a failed design.
  • Regarding Page ViewsPortal:Metabolism, which redirects to Portal:Biochemistry, has received 414 page views in the last thirty days. This is in part because after the portal was moved to its new title, the mover did not bother to update the portal links in various areas to read as "Biochemistry", such as articles (e.g. see the See also section in this perm link). No offense intended, but as such, actual page views for the portal are being seriously misrepresented in the deletion nomination.. The redirect goes directly to the Biochemistry portal, which are ultimately page views for the portal. Cheers, North America1000 23:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's all good, but for what it's worth, WP:NOTBROKEN is about articles, not portals. Fact is, the word "portal" is not present there at all. Furthermore, at WP:NAVNOREDIRECT regarding "good reasons to bypass redirects", it states, "In other namespaces, particularly the template and portal namespaces in which subpages are common, any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move is to be updated to the new title for naming consistency." The point is that the portal receives many more page views than is stated in the nomination. All of this is yet another reason why portals should not be moved around so casually. Cheers, North America1000 04:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The word "page" is there, which covers portals. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Better to follow what it states "In other namespaces", particularly since portals are specifically stated there, rather than based upon the word "pages" being present in a different area, which is simply referring to advice and disambiguation pages plurally. North America1000 04:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Daily average page views
for the month of June 2019
Page(s) Views
Portal:Biochemistry + Portal:Metabolism 16
Biochemistry + Metabolism 3,256
Biochemistry 1,378
Metabolism 1,878
  • Neat statistical trick there by NA1K. It seems that the pageviews counter has not been including views for the redirects. Thanks to @NA1K for spotting that ... but a wee WP:TROUTing to to NA1K for a) using a different period, and b) citing the total pageviews for the whole period, when all the rest of the figures used are the daily average across a period.
So, to make a valid comparison, we need to use the same statistical base for all usages. So I'll take again the daily averages for the month of June. That gives us the table on the right.
That shows the combined views for the articles Biochemistry + Metabolism as 3,256 but the combined views for Portal:Biochemistry + Portal:Metabolism as only 16.
So readers prefer the articles by a ratio of 203:1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, if this were my nomination, I would strike the part in the nom stating, "in June 2019, the portal got only 2 page views per day", because it's erroneous and misleading. That's just me, though. Cheers, North America1000 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. the topic meets WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. The number of page views stated in the nomination remains incorrect, and as such, is misleading. Furthermore, articles typically receive more page views compared to portals. To increase portal page views, more visible links to it can be added to various articles and other pages. More visible links = more page views. North America1000 08:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @NA1K, as you very well know, it is untrue to say that topic meets WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. You know very well that POG defines this as WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and you know that this has attracted neither viewers nor maintainers.
Why do you repeatedly tell outright lies about the guidelines? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – See the category tree below for topical coverage of the topic on English Wikipedia. My !vote stands: the breadth of coverage is adequate to qualify for a portal. Guidelines are just that, guidelines; they are not ultra strict, absolute policies. Being accused of being a liar above is very sophomoric and a disappointment to see here. It's the kind of behavior that turns people away from Wikipedia. Very sad, and I won't be responding to such worthless, WP:BAIT remarks. Also, the number of page views stated in the nomination continues to remain incorrect, which is misleading. Cheers, North America1000 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Select [►] to view subcategories
  • Reply to the liar Northamerica1000. I don't often call people liars, but when an admin repeatedly and systematically asserts claims which they know to be false, then it is appropriate to use the term per WP:SPADE. Sadly, NA1K now has a long record of lying about the portal guidelines, and such systematic dishonesty in consensus-forming discussions drives people away from Wikipedia.
NA1K was one of the editors who last month advocated at WT:Portal/Guidelines#Pageviews the removal of the requirement to have large pageviews. That proposal was overwhelmingly rejected, but NA1K dishonestedly proceeds as if it there was a consensus in favour of that failed proposal.
It's also shocking that NA1K claims that Guidelines are just that, guidelines; they are not ultra strict, absolute policies. The reality is that at the top of WP:POG, there is the standard guideline notice which says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
Instead of arguing for occasional exceptions, NA1K ignores the guidelines every time, and instead of attempting to follow them NA1k tries hard to misrepresent them through omission and selective quotation. Instead of applying common sense, NA1K claims that the abysmal pageview for a portal are no problem because other abandoned portals also have abysmal pageviews.
NA1K's game-playing approach is well-illustrated by their posting here of the first level of the category tree, with 34 categories. That tells us little except how the category tree is organised, but hey it's 34 links presented so that it fills up half a screen, which it it's a handy substitute for a reasned, policy-based argument.
AS NA1K well knows, the test of broadness is not solely the number of articles. It is that that portals should be broad enough to "attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one doesn't, and all NA1K's arguments are just a smokescreen of deceptions, omissions, sophistry and lies to obscure the simple fact that after ten years this portal is unmainatined and almost unread.
NA1K is one of a small and dwindling crew of portalistas who like working portals because portals are a backwater where the portalsistas don't apply the usual standards of sourcing etc, and the portalistas have for over a decade created walled gardens with little scrutiny because hardly anyone reads the portals in which they do their busywork.
So when face with scrutiny, the response of NA1k and her small crew has been a variety of deflection techniques. NA1K tried depopulating tracking categories; tried gutting the guidelines; and when both those exploits failed, has now resorted simply to walls of FUD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 
Portal:Metabolism redirects to Portal:Biochemistry. Note as an example that the former has received 467 page views in the thirty-day time period of 5/15/2019 – 6/15/2019. Of course, this should also be taken into consideration: these are actually page views that Portal:Biochemistry has ultimately received!
  • Yawn. Yet more garish, subjective shaming, blaming and apparent WP:BAITING, apparently and unfortunately BHG's modus operandi now regarding any and all portal editors. Resorting to calling people a liar on a public noticeboard is juvenile and entirely ad hominem, a cheap logical fallacy. Consider taking a break from scolding others, maybe improve an article, or something.
Regarding the laughable notion, "NA1K is one of a small and dwindling crew of portalistas who like working portals because portals are a backwater where the portalsistas don't apply the usual standards of sourcing": actually, I'm a proponent of sources being included in portals, rather than omitted. I guess you'll just say anything. You seem to enjoy villainizing any and all portal editors, apparently per a potential confirmation bias that all portals, portal editors, and anything portal are somehow bad. Whatever. Consider checking out the lighthearted advice at Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads. Also, please seriously consider trying to treat users more respectfully. Meanwhile, I'll continue to remain calm and civil in deletion discussions.
If you're able to discuss the portal itself without resorting to walls of personal attacks, it's possible I may respond further here, but otherwise, I'll decline to gratify any additional ranting. It's wrong, and it's not improving Wikipedia, it's polluting it. North America1000 10:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, there is nothing calm and civil about your sustained practice of telling lies about policy and guidelines, or of trying to paint me as a baddie for calling you out on that.
I repeat: NA1K tried depopulating tracking categories; tried gutting the guidelines; and when both those exploits failed, has now resorted simply to walls of FUD.
Please stop polluting Wikipedia with your lies and FUD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's latest FUD tactic: statistical deceptionEdit

Here's another example of the FUD tactics of deception being used by the admin and serial liar User:Northamerica1000.

In the nomination posted in good faith the pageviews for the portal, and for the head article. As with every nomination, in each case I linked to the query, to facilitate verification. NA1K spotted that there was a higher pageview count for the previous title. I thanked NA1K for that, and promptly created a table comparing pageviews for both portal and article, using old and new title. That table is at #biochemfullpageviews, and I have added a note about it to the nominating statement.

That shows daily averages for the month of June 2019, just as the original nomination did. NA1K has offered no comment on that table.

Further up, @Robert McClenon has posted a table comparing the pageviews of portals. Again using the daily averages which allow comparison of periods of different length.

But now NA1K has posted a box purporting to offer pageviews which have not been counted in other stats.

This is deceptive in three ways:

  1. I have already posted comparative table of pageviews. The box posted by NA1K falsely implies that there are omissions in those stats, but NA1K has not identified any omissions.
  2. NA1K posts the total pageviews for a period, rather than the daily averages used by every other editor who has posted stats. This has the effect of making it falsely appear that NA1K has discovered some massive, gamechanging set of uncounted pageviews.
  3. NA1K has posted stats for the period 2019-05-15 to 2019-06-15. The stats table I posted is for the calendar month of June, that being the most recent complete month before the nomination. Changing the period of comparison without reason or explanation id a classic FUD tactic

NA1K's conduct really is getting out of hand. Serial lies about the portal guidelines. Attempts to gut the guidelines. Attempts to depopulate or delete portal tracking categories. NA1K's repeated bogus claims taht WP:NOTCOMPULSORY bans any requirement for a portal to have a named maintainer.

And now an exercise in statistical FUD. Is there no limit?   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

My table above is for the period from 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019 in order to avoid the complications of the renaming of the portal. Any argument that my metrics need to be adjusted because of the renaming of the portal is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I won't be responding further to personal attacks. North America1000 06:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @NA1K, it should be very clear from what I wrote that I don't want you to respond. I want and end to your lies and your FUD and your systematic decitfulness at MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's latest: Improved the portalEdit

I have cleaned up, improved and expanded the portal a bit. It definitely has room for more improvements, and I will continue to work on it after posting this. I feel that the portal has potential to become a significant resource for Wikipedia's WP:READERS. If it is retained, this would allow time for it to be entirely overhauled, further improving it. I also added a link to the main article's See also section (diff), which unfortunately, previously lacked a link to the portal. Bye. North America1000 06:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As NA1K well knows, the test for portal is much more specific than what NA!k feels.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
NA1K does not even try to offer any evidence to show that the portal might now satisfy that guideline.
A one-off set of tweaks by one editor does not amount to "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer – Since I've been maligned here in such a crude, uncivil and unnecessary manner, a closing statement. Under BHG's line of logic, then the {{Orphan}} template should not exist. If a portal were to have zero links to it in other areas of Wikipedia, it's common sense that it would receive low page views. Conversely, if 1,000 links exist linking to a portal, strategically placed in highly topically-aligned areas that receive decent traffic, it's common sense that page views will quite likely increase, at least sometimes. Makes perfect sense, really. Be sure to check out WP:ORP, where it states, "Orphaned articles, since they have no links to them from other pages, are difficult to find, and are most likely to be found only by searching, or by chance. Because of this, few people know they exist, and therefore, they receive less readership and improvement from those who would be able to improve them" (bold emphasis mine). This also makes perfect sense. I'm no liar, and the constant insults posted here and elsewhere are wholly inappropriate and do absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia. I anticipate the potential for yet another reply with yet another long rant of anger, which I won't be responding to if occurrent. Bye. North America1000 05:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's get this back on track...Edit
  • Keep primarily for the reasons given by User:UnitedStatesian. The portal was moved to a very broad subject, Biochemistry. A topic with a wide array of interesting articles, media and material that can be included in the portal. And I believe there is enough room for improvement, which at least one editor appears to be engaged in already. So, to me this MfD appears to premature from the get-go. --Hecato (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hecato, WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Where is the evidence that this portal is likely to "attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
 
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
So far it has no maintainers, and almost no readers. As you can see from the graph, most portals have almost no readers.
So what evidence do you have that this portal will be the exception which will "attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Korean cuisineEdit

Portal:Korean cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the very last of the automated navbox-clone portals created in 2018/19 by mass portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH). There is no non-automated version.

Most of the navbox-clone portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups.

This one was omitted from the mass deletions because it is built on one sidebar navbox plus one list, not just on one navbox. It was nominated for deletion in mid-April 2019 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine, in a discussion which became a bit of a trainwreck because the nominator misunderstood the nature of the portal and took umbrage when corrected. The discussion was eventually closed as "no consensus".

The portal draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Korean cuisine and the List of Korean dishes.

The List of Korean dishes transcludes Template:Korean cuisine. That means that the "selected articles" feature of the portal adds precisely nothing to the list article other than the excerpt preview function, which is now redundant (see below).

This portal draws its "selected images" list solely from the head article Korean cuisine. That means that the "selected images" feature of the portal adds precisely nothing to the head article other than the slideshow function, which is now already built into the head article (see below).

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on either or both of these link to Template:Korean cuisine and List of Korean dishes , open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Korean cuisine, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". A "portal" which offers zero enhancements is a waste of our readers's time. So let's just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. As seen here, this portal has only 5 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 771 for the article, and so offers no value added.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Notes Type
Korean cuisine 5 771 Automated design, originated Sept. 2018. 154.20 0.65% No consensus 27 May 2019. Food
Indian cuisine 17 1579 Automated design, originated Sept. 2018. No subpages. 92.88 1.08% No consensus 27 May 2019. Food

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per my comment here. –MJLTalk 20:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep If there is an appropriate venue for an MfD coming so soon after a previous MfD closed as no consensus, it is DRV, not a new MfD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @UnitedStatesian: The closer @MJL has explicitly written[18] My choice of no consensus was intentionally to allow for renomination. The only objections to that MFD originally were procedural. So there is no need for DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indian cuisineEdit

Portal:Indian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of the very last of the automated navbox-clone portals created in 2018/19 by mass portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH). There is no non-automated version.

Most of the navbox-clone portalspam was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two), and the rest in smaller groups.

This one was omitted from the mass deletions because it is built on two navboxes, not one. It was nominated for deletion in mid-April 2019 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Indian cuisine, in a discussion which became a bit of a trainwreck because the nominator misunderstood the nature of the portal and took umbrage when corrected. The discussion was eventually closed as "no consensus".

The portal draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Cuisine of India and the sidebar Template:Indian cuisine, both of which are now transcluded in the head article Indian cuisine. That means that the "selected articles" feature of the portal adds precisely nothing to the head article other than the excerpt preview function, which is now redundant (see below).

This portal draws its "selected images" list solely from the head article Indian cuisine. That means that the "selected images" feature of the portal adds precisely nothing to the head article other than the slideshow function, which is now already built into the head article (see below).

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the navbox Template:Cuisine of India, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Indian cuisine, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". A "portal" which offers zero enhancements is a waste of our readers's time. So let's just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. As seen here, this portal has only 17 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 1579 for the article, and so offers no value added.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Notes Type
Korean cuisine 5 771 Automated design, originated Sept. 2018. 154.20 0.65% No consensus 27 May 2019. Food
Indian cuisine 17 1579 Automated design, originated Sept. 2018. No subpages. 92.88 1.08% No consensus 27 May 2019. Food

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I stand by my closure for the exact reasons described in this nomination. I'm glad to see this discussion being properly held on the right terms where clear consensus can finally develop. Thank you BrownHairedGirl for your hard work in this field. Cheers, –MJLTalk 20:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @MJL. That was a good close of a discussion which just went all wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep If there is an appropriate venue for an MfD coming so soon after a previous MfD closed as no consensus, it is DRV, not a new MfD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @UnitedStatesian: My choice of no consensus was intentionally to allow for renomination. The only objections to that MFD originally were procedural. I see no reason why this nomination was in appropriate. –MJLTalk 04:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    Salvelinus namaycush for User:UnitedStatesian. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: it would have been very helpful for you to have written your reason in the closing statement rather than to have expected editors to read your mind until now. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @UnitedStatesian: What "no consensus" means: In any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. Keeping an article preserves all options and the possibility of future discussions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    If I had known that this essay wasn't as widely read as I imagined at the time, then I would've made a little note. I thought people knew about this though, so I didn't. My apologies. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 22:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    And @MJL: your statement that "The only objections to that MFD originally were procedural." is demonstrably false: the MfD got 2 keep !votes that had nothing to do with procedure (from editors who have apparently been WP:BLUDGEONED away from commenting in this second shot at the target). UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    @UnitedStatesian: I probably should have said The initial objections to that MFD were procedural.MJLTalk 18:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    @UnitedStatesian, far from being bludgeoned away, all participants in the previous MFD were explicitly pinged to invite them here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

July 6, 2019Edit

Portal:ClimbingEdit

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

Delete Portal recreated by a user six days after joining the project, just squeaking under the newly applicable autoconfirmed requirement. And just like this portal's last MfD discussion (closed as delete), and the more recent one for Portal:Rock climbing, the subject does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I disagree with the admin who declined the G4, but we are here. There is no reason to think that this portal will attract readers. It is not a broad subject area. At best, what the author is proposing may be a slide show, but a portal should be more than a slide show. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - On inspection, this portal does not rely on subpages, which is an improvement over the old portal design that relies on subpages. However, this portal appears to consist of lists of topics and articles that function as a tree of navboxes, but are less intuitive and less convenient to use than a navbox. What the author is doing can be done at least as well with a navbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the person who created that portal, I am willing to improve whatever concerns you have with the quality of the portal. None of these concerns have been brought to my attention though. Hecato (talk) 06:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too narrow a topic, and redundant to Template:Climbing navbox.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. :Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Climbing navbox, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Climbing, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the notability please consider my comment below. @BrownHairedGirl: Hecato (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:Notability is a concept which applies to articles. This discussion is about a portal, which is not an article, so notability does not apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The first Portal:Climbing was deleted 10 years ago with two votes, things change a lot since then. The deletion proposal of Portal:Rock Climbing specifically said the portal could be recreated again properly by a dedicated editor.
    According to the old deletion discussions the Portals were deleted due being abandoned, half-way finished and low quality. None of this is the case with this portal and I am willing to improve the quality according to what the community thinks is reasonable. Regarding the claim that climbing is not a notable broad enough topic. I think the collected article topics in the portal show a different image. But if that is not enough, climbing as a sport is part of the Summer Olympics in 2020 and 2024.[1][2] According to PetScan (depth 20) Category:Climbing has 7874 articles. To put that in reference with some categories with associated portals: Gymnastics has 8029, Isle of Wight has 1737. Hecato (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Note That figure of 7874 is almost certainly nonsense. Blindly using Petscan to a depth of 20 sucks in all sorts of articles which have a tangential relationship to the topic. It includes for example the 610 articles in Category:Lists of mountains+subcats, and the first item returned by that search is America the Beautiful. The 25th item is Clint Eastwood.
So basically, those are garbage statistics ... and @Hecato will have known when posting them that they are garbage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I am limited by functionality of PetScan. Depth 10 has the same results by the way. I just used depth 20 because when I tested it with some portal categories I got extremely low results, which I found unlikely. Mountains that have information about climbing ascends are very much in the scope of the Climbing project by the way. Mountaineering is a sub-topic of Climbing. I don't appreciate these assumptions of trying to mislead. Hecato (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There are two possibilities.
  1. that you didn't even glance at the results to assess their relevance, so and thereby didn't notice that the very first item is a song which not about climbing
  2. that you did notice that irrelevance at the start, but used the junk numbers anyway.
So which is is? Did you make no check of the data you presented? Or did you intentionally mislead? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The tool is not perfect, one article being miscategorized does not disprove the trend. I did not write that piece of software so such things are outside of my control. PetScan is the best tool available to my knowledge, if you have a better tool for counting articles in categories and subcategories, then please present it. Hecato (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand the problem: there is no miscategorisation involved. The problem is that your search was badly designed, and AFAICS you appear not to have done even the cursory checks which would have revealed that there is a design flaw.
Categories on en.wp are grouped in hierarchies for navigational convenience, not for mathematical purity. So a set of "Category:X + subcats" will often include topics which are at best tangentially related to X. (One of the worst examples of this arose from the not-wholly-unreasonable placing of Category:Kennedy family in Category:People from County Wexford. The trail of subcats went Category:People from County WexfordCategory:Kennedy familyCategory:John F. KennedyCategory:Presidency of John F. KennedyCategory:Vietnam War. And Category:Vietnam War is a huge sprawling thing, so Category:People from County Wexford picked up most of the 20th century history of Vietnam.)
So any such result set needs to be checked to see whether it has picked up tangential articles. You are new to Wikipedia, so may not be aware of the nature of categories. But since you have stated that you are a software developer, I am sure that you know to quickly examine a data set to see whether it is plausible. The presence near the top of the list of both America the Beautiful and Clint Eastwood should have been a clear indication that this search was not working as you hoped.
This same pattern has been replicated by you several times: you make strong assertions which turn out to be ill-founded because you made mistaken assumptions about the data and didn't test those assumptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
PetScan is a wikimedia tool listed at Wikipedia:Categorization. I use the tools recommended to my be the guidelines. Meanwhile what do you base your concept of "breadth of subject" on exactly, a feeling? Hecato (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Your claim to be a software developer looks less and less plausible with every comment by you. The problem here is that you used the tool without understanding its effects, and without even a preliminary sanity-check on its results. The result was garbage-in, garbage out. If you were genuialey a software developer, you'd understand the problem without having it explained to you.
I assess breadth by a number of factors, including number of directly relevant articles in scope, but also on experience of the number of readers and editors attracted by other portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
How many articles are in the scope then? And I don't know why you are bringing up my occupation again and again as if I had used that as an argument. Another user asked a personal question about how I could create a "technically sophisticated, excellent quality portal" (their words, not mine) while being a new user, so I answered their question. You barged into that conversation uninvited by the way to throw some self-defeating argument about pageviews at me and insult me personally. I maintain that I used the best tools available to me and did not try to mislead while you are constantly abusing and misinterpreting policies to suit your rather concerning anti-portal agenda. Hecato (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You used a tool without understanding what it does, and without sanity-checking the results, and seem wholly unconcerned by the fact that on that basis you made definitive statements which are demonstrably untrue.
You also seem entirely unconcerned about your transparently bogus use of statistics in that other discussion. So at this stage you don't look like either a software developer or a person of integrity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:Notability is a concept which applies to artices that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in prles. This discussion is about a portal, which is not an article, so notability does not apply.
The relevant guidance here is WP:POG, which requiractice, the repeated experience of sports portals is that the only those portals which relate to mass spectator sports attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
For specific data, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock climbing. In Jan–Feb 2019 that portal got only 6 pageviews per day, which is an utterly abysmal figure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to attract a large number of readers and dedicated maintainers if the portal gets deleted right after its creation. I have demonstrated that climbing is a broad subject area as per comment above. And climbing is already a broader subject than just rock climbing. Also please consider that this discussion is about this portal and not the concept of portals as a whole. There was a community decision which came to the conclusion that portals as a feature are valuable and should be kept. Please apply your reasoning in that context. Hecato (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hecato, there are a bunch of misunderstandings there:
  1. WP:ENDPORTALS did not ask whether portals as a feature are valuable and should be kept. It asked whether all portals should be immediately deleted. The answer to that question was a clear "no", but "don't delete everything now" does not mean "keep everything" or that "portals as a feature are valuable". Please apply your reasoning without misrepresenting the RFC.
  2. The test of whether a portal is a "broad topic are" is not just how many articles are within its scope. WP:POG applies two other criteria: it requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". You have offered no evidence that this portal has attracted any maintainers other than yourself, and we have the evidence of the previous portal that viewers didn't want it, and the evidence of other sports portals.
  3. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock climbing, one of the issues was that it had been abandoned for over 8 years. So please drop the deleted right after its creation stuff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a whole list of reasons that were found against deleting portals, see here. How do you measure breadth then? And you are deleting this portal right after its creation. This portal is not abandoned, as you might have noticed by my presence. Hecato (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato, you linked to Wikipedia:Consultation on the future of portals. that page is actually just a tendentious essay, driven in part by the discredited portalspammer @The Transhumanist (TTH). Please do not misrepresent it as documenting any sort of community consensus.
As you well know, nobody is arguing that this portal is abandoned. Please do not make straw man arguments like that, because straw man tactics are deeply corrosive to collaborative discussions.
The problem is that as I have explained to you above, the breadth test of a portal is defined in part by its ability to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Your lone presence is evidence of the existence of one lone maintainer, not of large numbers of maintainers. And we need to weigh that evidence of your presence against the fact that a similar portal was abandoned for nearly a decade. So the balance of evidence I see is that you are a lone enthusiast for creating this portal, which make sit very likely that it will join the list of many many hundreds of other portals which were built by one enthusiastic good-faith editor like yourself ... but which had nobody else to maintain them when that editor moved on to other things. Nearly 600 such abandoned portals have been deleted in the last few months (on top of about 4200 automated spam portals crated by TTH and his partners-in-crime), and I have just today found another dozen to bring to MFD. So if you want this portal to be kept, the most persuasive thing you could do is to is to link to a discussion where a large number of other editors have committed themselves to working to maintain this portal indefinitely. That could change my mind, though I would have to weigh it against the likelihood of very low readership. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please don't tell me about bad faith debate tactics and ask me in the same breath to present a large number of dedicated maintainers and readers for a portal that I have just created. By that logic Wikipedia should have deleted itself right after its inception because it did not have any readers. Hecato (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This is not right after Wikipedia's creation. It's nearly two decades after Wikipedia's creation, when we have long-established guidelines requiring multiple maintainers for portals because of 14 years of experience of portals being created in good faith by lone enthusiasts who later abandon them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You mean this? 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. Does it say anywhere that you need to have more than one maintainer when you create a portal? To me it reads like you need to create a portal that is attractive to maintainers, which I did not have time to demonstrate since you are trying to delete the portal right after its creation. Hecato (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Then you have reading comprehension issues. The text clearly refers to broad subject areas which attracts maintainers and readers. It does not refer to designs which attract editors.
You continue to ignore the points I have been repeatedly making; that we have evidence that other climbing-related portals did not attract either maintainers or editors; and we have evidence that non-spectator sports generally don't attract them. Hence the request for evidence that the clear trends have been bucked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
As was established in the deletion discussions, the other portals were low quality, halfway finished and not maintained. Why would they attract readers and maintainers? Your argument is flawed. A portal needs to have a broad topic, which is demonstrated by a large number of readers and maintainers. And a portal needs to have a large number of maintainers and readers, which meanwhile must be caused by a broad subject. This ignores all other possible factors playing into the success of a portal. At no point have you demonstrated anything or set out a clear definition for breadth of subject. You just use this policy as it suits you and you make it out to be more clean cut than it actually is. ...should be about broad subject areas... and ...which are likely to... is such vague language, meanwhile you treat this like it was a clean cut demand for X amount of maintainers and Y number of readers with a topic that has a breadth of Z, otherwise we need to instantly delete the portal with no breathing room. None of that is actually written anywhere in that guideline. I don't even want to know how many portals you have deleted with that draconian interpretation of that innocent lead section for a guideline about creating high quality portals. Hecato (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
Hecatio, just look at graph of average daily pageviews for portals (data source here). Very very few portals achieve anything other than risible pageviews. Only 6.2% of portals exceed even 100 pageviews per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Hecato - I have changed the level of your References because second-level and third-level headings in an MFD break the flow of the MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Tangential Question for @Hecato: , and I am genuinely interested, with no axe to grind here: by all appearances you joined the project on June 14, on June 20 you were creating a technically sophisticated, excellent quality portal (its quality is not my issue, only the breadth of its subject matter), and on July 6 you are running Petscans to depth 20? Can I ask if you came from a different WikiProject, since if there are other editors like you there we would love to repeat your recruitment with them. Please do not read any sarcasm into this, I am genuinely interested in hearing your story and improving English Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I will answer on your talk page as not to influence the vote. Hecato (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment as user BrownHairedGirl pointed out, this Portal has 29 average daily pageviews (since the day I created it), more than the Portals Golf and Tennis. If we measure the value of a portal by its pageviews alone, then this portal should not be deleted. But if we do not, then you should ask yourself this: by what measure do you judge the value of a portal? If there is no objective measurement of breadth of subject, like numbers of articles in the scope, and pageviews themselves are not trustworthy, then maybe you need to reassess your procedure for deleting portals. Maybe if you vote for deleting portals no matter what, you are violating the meaning of consensus and democracy on this website. If you want to delete all portals start a new RfC. Hecato (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • As @Hecato well knows, the figure of 29 reflects a period of only a few days, in which the portal was being built and the being discussed at this MFD. So those figures are predominantly the views by editors participating in those processes, not of readers. As evidence of reader interest, they are utterly useless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I have build most of that portal in my sandbox. And if this one and only statistic you seem to care about, pageviews, is distorted and not applicable because of the young age of this portal, then this AfD must have been premature. Hecato (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per now, while there is no consensus about WP:POG. I consider this topic somewhat narrow, but this portal is better than "90%" of portals related to sports.Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with WP:POG is that it is too lax. This portal fails even the lax interpretation. At 29 views per day, it fails its reason for existing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @SmokeyJoe:, per the current discussion here show me that the community has no consensus about what a portal is. I agree with your statement and by my mfds history would vote delete here, but I expect a consensus from the community so that portals like this one are deleted(or keepd) in block and not individually.Guilherme Burn (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Agree. There is not simple statement as to what a Portal is, or should be. ENDPORTALS showed considerable dissatisfaction with the status quo of portals, but shied back from agreeing to delete them all en mass, absolutely no surprise there. I think Portals needs a massive restructure, a reboot, and that all but the top portals, the ones currently linked from the main page, need to go. But by "go", I mean restructured, archived, not deleted. I think that navigation portals need structure for the portals and pathways, not thousands of standalone doors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Climbing is a major sport, practised worldwide, with many different types; it is an adequately broad topic. Many of the arguments brought here more & more feel like "I DON'T LIKE IT" dressed in wikiacronyms. Per my comment elsewhere, relying on the Foundation's buggy new code to provide a portal replacement is unwise. It is certainly not supported by a community-wide RfC, which in my opinion would be required. If you feel the need to respond to this comment, feel free to do so, but please DO NOT ping me. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Espresso Addict, the rhetorical flourish of dismissing reasoned objections as "I DON'T LIKE IT" is a sleazy and dishonest game. I am sad to see you reduced to that, because you can do so much better.
As you well know, 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 in practice this portal has only a single maintainer, a new editor in the first flush of wiki-enthusiasm who expresses OUTRAGE that before creating a portal they might have sought out other editors interested in maintaining it. We also have clear evidence that the previous portals in this topic area were abandoned and underused.
The irony of it all is that despite EA's cry of "I DON'T LIKE IT", the only "I DON'T LIKE IT" at play here is EA's decision to simply ignore the two tests which qualify the "broad subject areas" requirement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Climbing, and redirect all the subpages. Climbing is the parent article that serves to provide a source-based NPOV-compliant introduction and navigation options. The Portal is non-encyclopedic, and presents and reads like a pro-climbing pamphlet. Redirect to preserve the history while it is decided how to revamp the whole portal concept, which is a process that has no chance of keeping such narrow topics as stand alone portals. All that is good about this portal should be built into the article Climbing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion that climbing as a topic is too small to deserve a portal overview of its topics for reasons explained above. But still I would like to hear your opinions about this portal being POV and paying an undue amount of attention to only some aspects of climbing. If this portal happens to survive this deletion discussion, please tell me your concerns on the talk page of the portal, or on my own talk page and I will try to address them. Hecato (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato, this portal has far from the worst POV attractiveness (politics is far more attractive to POV), but this topic like all topics is vulnerable to Wikipedian's unconscious bias. It is virtually unavoidable. The answer is WP:NPOV, by presenting viewpoints only as they exist in sources, and ensuring explicit viewpoint presentation by active voice phrasing with explicit sourcing. Now, to illustrate I look at Portal:Climbing vs Climbing, and am appalled at the state of the article, being completely unsourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the rationales of User:Hecato and User:Espresso Addict above. I feel that the topic is broad enough to meet the portal guideline relative to its topical coverage on English Wikipedia. This new version of the portal was created on 20 June 2019‎, and as such, the nomination for deletion is premature, in my opinion, occurring just 16 days after the page was created. The crystal ball prediction above stating, "there is no reason to think that this portal will attract readers" is premature; again, the portal has only been live for 16 days. Furthermore, the portal's creator herein has stated that they are willing to improve and address concerns about the portal, so there is also an active maintainer. North America1000 22:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin. NA1K is an experienced admin who is very well-acquainted with portal guideline WP:POG, not least because NA1K repeatedly supports unsuccessful proposals to remove from it any wording which might support deletion of even completely abandoned portals. POG provides two clear factors to measure a portal's breadth: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".
Note the wording: "large numbers", applied to both readers and maintainers.
So we have yardstricks by which to measure this. Sadly, the systematically deceptive NA1k routinely comments in MFDs by omitting any mention of these yardsticks, as where NA1K asserts I feel that the topic is broad enough.
 
Average daily pageviews of portals on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
To counter this assertion of feelings, we have actual evidence:
  1. Very few portal attracts the large number of readers required by the guideline. In Q2 2019, only 6.2% of portals got even 100 pageviews per day. NA1K offers not a shred of evidence to suggests that this portal has any characteristic which would place it in that mere 6.2% of portals which pass even the pathetically low thershold of 100/day.
  2. As NA1K well knows, POG requires that a portal attract large numbers of maintainers. Yet here we have one lone maintainer, a new editor in the first flush of enthusiasm. The ranks of deleted portals are filled with portals created with enthusiasm by an enthusiastic newcomer who disappeared soon after. No evidence has been offered to suggest that this portal is an exception to that pattern.
As an admin, NA1K knows much better than to repeatedly misrepresent established guidelines in order to obscure wording which she has unsuccessfully tried to remove. I hope that the closure of the discussion does not endorse the systematic deception practiced by NA1K. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please take your personal disputes elsewhere. And none of those numbers or thresholds are official guideline. Nowhere in the guideline is a number set for minimum pageviews or maintainers. And one active maintainer is usually enough for any other portal to avoid deletion. Regarding me being merely an "enthusiastic newcomer", I am an extended confirmed user. And I do not appreciate these assumptions about me lacking character and getting bunched together in insulting generalizations. --Hecato (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hecato: you have made 592 edits after being signed up for 33 days; that is very firmly in newcomer territory. And "enthusiastic" is a compliment.
My objection to NA1K's conduct is not, as you claim, a personal dispute. It is an objection to this consensus-forming discussion being disrupted by an admin who has chosen yet again to be intentionally deceptive about WP:POG, which explicitly requires "large numbers" tactically .
I understand that you may wish to ally yourself with NA1K since your objectives in this discussion coincide. But no matter how vehement your objections I will not desist from challenging NA1K's sustained practice of deception. If you choose to define yourself as defender of NA1K's practice of systematic deception in pursuit of their goals, that is entirely your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I could be critical of your practices as well, which I believe I have been, but that is not the point of this discussion page. If you wish to criticize that user's integrity and practices then choose the appropriate venue instead of doing it in every discussion they are involved in. And the policy states specifically portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. It does not state: portals need to have large numbers of pageviews at all times and if they have below 100 daily views, then they need to be deleted. And if they have one maintainer then that is not enough either. And if those maintainers have not been long enough here, then they are no good anyway and don't count. I believe that is just your personal addition. --Hecato (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato:
  1. I am criticising NA1K's integrity and practices in this discussion because NA1K is using those dishonest practices to attempt to sway this discussion. I will do so in any discussion in which any editor deliberately misrepresents policy.
  2. please do not use {{tq}} to wrap words which are not a quote. That is deceptive and misleading
  3. We agree that POG says "large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". You are at least doing better than NA1K, who pretend that this phrase doesn't exist. So now that we agree what the guideline actually says, tie for a reality check. Do you agree that
    • One portal maintainer is not a large number of portal maintainers?
    • That less than 100 page views per day is not a "large numbers of interested readers"?
Those are the two realities about which NA1K is in denial. Where do you stand on them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright, let us dissect that sentence from the guideline. All it says is that portals should have a broad subject area because that might (is likely to) lead to large numbers of readers and maintainers. Which is implied to be desirable. It does not state a portal needs to have a large number of readers and maintainers. It does not state a broad subject area will instantly and necessarily cause large numbers of readers and maintaners, just that it is likely to lead to it. And it does not set out numbers for any of these parameters. It does not state a portal needs to be deleted if it does not meet these (non-existent) numbers. It does not state a portal needs to be deleted if it does not have at least two maintainers. I hope this cleared up your confusion about what this sentence does say and what it does not say. --Hecato (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are editors here who seem willing to make improvements to the portal, give it a chance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is It Needed?. I am naive concerning "portals." Climbing seems quite sufficient in my opinion. An internet search for "climbing" produces an immediate link to the Wikipedia article, which I think is fairly well-written, and directs one to any number of sub-genres. Please explain the added value of a preliminary portal that more or less does the same thing? It would appear the entire purpose of this portal is to emphasis formal competitions, such as the Olympic Games. I think it's a mistake to introduce the reader to the sport from this perspective. For example, "bouldering" is listed under the section Sport Climbing. I suspect many boulderers would take exception to this categorization. Oldtimermath (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is needed. Portals offer a more visual and interactive narrative than an article ever could. Plain boring list of links that you can hover over are nice and all, but they are not as engaging and powerful as placards, slideshows, videos and selected content (selected along objective lines, not advocating for POV here). Some of these you can put in articles in lesser forms, but they always take a sideline position. Thanks to technical templates the information in the portal is always up to date, for instance the lead sections of important articles are transcluded into this portal. This means the overall quality of the climbing topic scope has an influence on the quality of the portal. As I understand it, all of this has been underutilized in other portals in the past and odd compromises have weakened them, trying to make them more like articles or navboxes, so I understand that many users don't appreciate the power of portals.
Regarding your concerns about the categorization of bouldering and the perceived focus on sport climbing, let us work it out together. The portal is new and I did not get much criticism yet. I think the right path forward would be constructive dialogue to improve the portal and shared editing, building a robust interactive introduction to the topic, not deleting it. And your ideas would be very welcome for that. Hecato (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hecato. "is it needed"? I think it is very hard to say it is, given the age of portals and their next to zero use. The few pageviews per days could well be only bots and crawlers. For what is it needed? What will happen differently in its absence? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
It is needed like a navbox is needed. It a tool for navigation and exploration according to a set of rules. A different set of rules than lists and navboxes. The better question is: is it useful? And I think it is. The portal is new and not well linked into the article-sphere yet. I don't think pageviews tell us much right after its creation. As I see it, one feature that all popular portals have in common is that they are well-linked in their respective article scope. Readers can not click on something they don't know exists. Hecato (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Needed like a navbox? For navbox navigation purposes, it is inferior to a navbox. Navboxes are easily understood and edited, to fix problems for example. This is not true for the portal. The portal is not comprehensive in navigation aids, and does not appear intended to be, instead presenting only a selection of options.
Rules for navigation by Portal? What are these rules? This goes to the purpose question being asked at both WT:POG and the Village Pump RfC. I can find or even imaging sensible workable rules, not with so much content featuring.
Mainspace to Portal space linking is uncommon. What are the prospects for serious linking, and why should this portal be different from most portals? For navigation by wikilinking, the parent article is how that is supposed to work best. Every relevant other article gets linked, usually directly, tangential relations within two wikilinks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This somehow turned into a discussion about the purpose of portals as a whole instead of a discussion about whether this individual portal is a good member of the set of portals. Do you care to continue this discussion somewhere else, maybe on that village pump you mentioned, so as not to fill up this discussion with meta topics? Please tell me on my talk page. Regarding the linking of portals, I think Portal:Science is a good example. It is linked in almost every article even tangentially related to science, at least I find it linked whenever I do any research on science topics. Hecato (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks a vibrant and informative Portal page. Far more interesting in appearance than the page on Climbing, if I'm honest, and serves as a good 'shop window' on the subject. I'm quite impressed by its contents and appearance (apart from the image of a person with ice tools on an indoor climbing wall. That needs changing.) I see no need to focus on the reasonable number of views thus far, as user hits have never featured in any article deletion discussions, nor should they for portals. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly delete Admittedly, the portal is more visually attractive and fashionable than Climbing, but that said, it seems more style than substance. The main article has been shaped by a number of devotees over a period of time, and I think it does its job quite well.
I know that at least one or two of you are climbers, but to what extent does one need to be an expert of sorts in the subject to develop this portal, or to pass judgement on the existing effort? My opinion is that one should have a depth and a breadth of experience in order to create an entrance path that reflects more than current trends in an activity created over a century and a half ago. It's a sport perceived by many as a lifestyle, rather than merely a collection of technical disciplines leading to formal competitions. And it has a rich history of daring feats and colorful characters. I suppose that's the crux of my concern. FWIW Oldtimermath (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I wish to expand the portal in that regard. I don't think deletion is the right remedy to your concerns, but thanks for your opinion anyway. Hecato (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – The following table shows pageview statistics for a variety of sports portals, some of which have been kept and some of which have been deleted. It probably won't change the result, which is that this portal will probably be approved (kept). However, sports portals do not attract readers. Portals have been shown not to be an effective way to promote topics within Wikipedia.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Baseline Comments Ratio Percent Articles Notes
Climbing
National Basketball League (Australia) 1 546 Jan19-Feb19 546.00 0.18%
Volleyball 2 5679 Jan19-Feb19 2839.50 0.04% Not deleted. Created March 2019, and was just a redirect during the sample period.
National Basketball League of Canada 4 390 Jan19-Feb19 No maintenance since 2015. Two articles. 97.50 1.03% 2
Baseball in Japan 4 140 Jan19-Feb19 No maintenance since 2011. 35.00 2.86% 9
IndyCar 5 343 Jan19-Jun19 Originator edits, but not this portal since creating it in 2012. No apparent maintenance since 2012. 68.60 1.46% 4
Rock climbing 6 464 Jan19-Feb19 77.33 1.29%
Gaelic games 6 103 Jan19-Feb19 17.17 5.83%
Swimming 16 399 Jan19-Feb19 Deleted 24.94 4.01% 4
Badminton 17 5793 Jan19-Feb19 340.76 0.29%
Figure Skating 18 974 Jan19-Feb19 Peak of article views at 4988 on 26 January 54.11 1.85%
National Football League 20 8691 Jan19-Feb19 Created in 2012. Last maintained in 2012. 434.55 0.23% 12
Basketball 23 6332 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2009. Last maintenance appears to be 2014. 275.30 0.36% 30
Olympic Games 29 5125 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since Jan 2017. Appears to have been last maintained in 2010. 176.72 0.57% 25 Portal has been renamed.
Baseball 38 2742 Jan19-Feb19 Originator last edited in 2014. Last maintenance in 2014. 72.16 1.39% 23
Sports 43 2677 Jan19-Feb19 Originator inactive since 2012. No indication of recent maintenance. 62.26 1.61% 77

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs) 03:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you going with WP:OSE here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Knowledgekid87 asks me why I am going with Other Stuff Exists. It isn't clear what argument I am said to be presenting. I am stating what the other stuff is. As I noted at the beginning of the comment, we can see what the outcome of this MFD will be, which is Keep. To a retired information technology engineer, quantitative data on other stuff may be interesting as data. But when the portal is nominated for deletion again in December 2019, or in August 2022, don't say that the numbers weren't available. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it makes more sense in this context. Hecato (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
ReferencesEdit
  1. ^ "Vertical Triathlon: The Future of Climbing in the Olympics". climbing.com. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019.
  2. ^ "Olympic Committee Unanimously Votes to Include Sport Climbing in Paris 2024 Games". climbing.com. Archived from the original on Jul 4, 2019.

July 3, 2019Edit

Portal:Seventh-day Adventist ChurchEdit

Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Mini portal (6 articles, 7 biographies, 6 pictures) on the twelfth-largest religious denomination. Can be more than adequetely covered by Portal:Christianity. Totally abandoned; Roscoe Bartlett would be very surprised he is still in Congress, as would any of the 20-30 daily bots who come across this page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If not deleted, I recommend Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church/Portal, as it remains not suitable for readers, but is useful for editors.
It has POV failings, worse than the pretty bad NPOV-failing, WP:PSTS-failing parent article Seventh-day Adventist Church, because at least the parent article is obviously and explicitly based on an excessive number of non-independent and primary sources. The Portal should no sourcing, thus no sourcing failures.
As pseudo-mainspace material, it failes core content policies, and attracts editors who should have their attention pointed towards the sourcing, and thus content, problems of the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This portal is not abandoned and this portal is still active. With all of the Did you knows that I added to this portal, it makes no sense to delete this portal. Catfurball (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abandoned, and redundant to the head article Seventh-day Adventist Church. The selected articles and biogs were all added in 2010, and none of those I checked has been significantly changed since, except for Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Selected biography/7, where @Catfurball removed the references.[19]. (Bad mistake: portals are not exempt from WP:V). That leaves the subpages as unsourced, 9-year-old content forks.
Catfurball mentions DYKs, so I checked when they had appeared on the main page:
  • 2016: 1
  • 2014: 3
  • 2011: 2
  • 2010: 2
  • 2009: 2
. 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 list of three-to-ten--year-old items loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA. Even if the portal is kept, his should be removed: portals do not exist to immortalise the trivia used as hooks to promote new articles.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Mumbai topics, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Mumbai, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game:
  • 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 this portals has been unmaintained for nine years, and it has abysmal page views. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got an average of only 32 pageviews per day, which is a risible 1% of the 3,119 daily views for the head article.
  • WP:POG#Article_selection requires that portals have "a bare minimum of 20 non-list, in topic articles". But after ten years, this has only 13 articles, a little over half of the bare minimum.
Most revealing of all is the talk page, Portal talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church, which had one post in 2010, and one bot message in 2018. Nobody else has even commented on the outdatedness.
Just delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination, and as per analysis by BrownHairedGirl. (Also another portal by a banned user, but that is not important.) Catfurball raises a novel argument in favoring of keeping a portal, and that is that a portal be kept as a display case to put DYK items on. I don't have a strong opinion on whether using a meganavbox-type portal as a display case for DYKs would be a reason to keep the portal. However, the partial copy approach for portals, which results in incorrect information facing the reader, which an ordinary editor does not have sufficient knowledge to correct, is sufficiently undesirable that it is not redeemed simply by having good DYKs. This portal should be deleted with prejudice to future re-creation, because an editor who wants to create an advanced design portal, such as a mega-navbox portal, can always go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well, things have certainly changed a bit since the nomination. I checked the 6 selected articles, 6 selected pictures, and 7 selected biographies, and Catfurball has now edited all but 4 of them (with no obvious problems with the untouched subpages). Also, Portals aren't supposed to have references in them per Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 7#References in portals (At least, that discussion was good enough for WP:ARA-JJJ). So long as Catfurball (& co.) keeps this updated, I'm not seeing the harm in keeping it. –MJLTalk 01:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @MJL, a portal does not just need a flurry of activity when under threat of deletion. It needs ongoing maintenance, and we don't even have a promise of that, let alone actual evidence of ongoing attention.
This looks to me like the pattern seen over the years with many portals:
  1. Portal is abandoned
  2. The abandoned portal is taken to MFD
  3. Some enthusiast does a quick burst of updates in the hope of staving off deletion
  4. Portal is not deleted
  5. Abandonment resumes
This can be seen e.g. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wicca (2nd nomination).
In this case, the minimalism of the changes means that we still have the farm of outdated DYKs, which are now just a trivia section. So much for the maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: That's fair, but it does show the editor is trying. My barrier to entry for portal maintenance is lower than most. I also don't see the outdated DYKs as much of a problem tbh. If they were good for the main page once, then they must be accurate. Trivia generally applies to articles only, but in this case I would say it adds a functionality to the portal that would not be able to exist as either a navbox, being categorized, or in the mainspace. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 16:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@MJL, I think it's important to distinguish between difft types of "trying":
  1. Trying to make a few tweaks to stave off deletion
  2. Trying to build the portal to meet minimum POG requirements (e.g. at least 20 article dispalayed)
  3. Trying to actually become an active maintainer so that the portal stay up-to-date
I see only #1.
DYK is to showcase new articles. Continuing to showcase them ten years later is like ten-year-old news. And the fact that they were accurate ten or twelve years ago does not make them accurate now. Twelve years ago, DYKs could accurately have noted that Daniel Radcliffe is a child actor, George W Bush is POTUS, Donald Trump is a New York real estate businessman, Michael Jackson is a singer, the F-35 is a planned aircraft, Lady Gaga is a young singer hoping to record an album some day, Qadaffi was leader of Libya, General Motors owns Opel Cars, Joseph Ratzinger is the Pope, Bertie Ahern is Taoiseach, etc etc. Those statements are are now all untrue, but this trivia farm presents ancient factoids as if they were written now. It would be better if they we dated, but they aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I had not considered that in relation to the DYK. I've stricken my !vote for now. If two out of three of your versions of trying are met, I'll re-add my keep vote. @Catfurball: could you get this to at least 20 displayed articles which are high-ish quality? –MJLTalk 16:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – For the following reasons:
  1. Catfurball has improved the portal.
  2. I have expanded the selected articles content (example diff), and will be expanding the portal more.
  3. Wikipedia:Did you know specifically refers only to Main page content. It was not written regarding portals, and does not pertain to portals. Fact is, the word "portal" does not even appear on the page; it is a fallacious synthesis of policy to apply Main page guidelines to portals.
  4. The portal receives a decent amount of page views, and with the addition of more links to it, page views will rise. More visible links = more views.
  5. WP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Wikipedia:Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page. Application of Redundant fork to portals is another fallacious synthesis of policy.
  6. The portal is now being maintained (diff). It will take some time to expand it further, so hopefully it is retained, to allow time to actually do so.
– Cheers, North America1000 22:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  1. It is untrue that to claim that Catfurball has improved the portal. The reality is that Catfurball has significantly degraded the portal by a series of edits such as this[20], which replace automatic transclusions with content forks. These forks are attacks vectors, and will become outdated unless maintained. I see no commitment from Catfurball or anyone else to engage in ongoing maintenance of these redundant forks. It is appalling that this sort of backwards step is being applauded.
  2. You have added extra articles as content forks (e.g. Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church/Selected article/19). We have had this discussion before: why do you continue to create redundant forks when templates exist to automatically transclude a lead excerpt from a list of articles, without even the need for subpages? Are you actively and deliberately trying to create a maintenance nightmare?
    In any case, why on earth are you persisting with this superfluous fourteen-year-old model of displaying excerpts, when you know very well that it is redundant now that mouseover provides automatic preview for non-legged-in readers?
  3. Your claim that application of DYK principles to portals is fallacious synthesis of policy is either deeply dishonest or evidence that you have a of a severe comprehension problem. The section uses the same heading as "Did you know", and is presented in the same form as WP:DYK. If you believe that it should in fact be a collection of any trivia, then label it as trivia. If you believe that it should be used for some purpose other than showcasing minor new articles, then stop mimicking the presentation of WP:DYK, and for gods sake date the entries, because the facts in DYK are checked for veracity when published, but may be nonsense a decade later.
  4.  
    Average daily pageviews of portal on en.wikipedia in April–June 2019
    NA1K fantasy claim: The portal receives a decent amount of page views. What on earth is wrong with you that you utter such known falsehoods, when the evidence has already been set out? Your statement is simply a brazen lie, because as you already know full well, it receives an abysmal 1% of the pageviews of the head article. One per cent.
    Those are abysmal figures. And no, more links will not significantly increase that abysmal figure. See the graph to the right; all but a v few portals get abysmal pageviews, because the overwhelming majority of readers don't use portals. So only 6.2% of portals average over 100 pageviews per day. Even if you spammed links everywhere and miraculously managed to triple the pageviews of this portal, propelling it in to the top 6% of portals, that would still be only 3% of the view rate of the head article..
  5. I am staggered at the sheer brazen dishonesty of the portalistas who repeatedly claim that unnecessary and redundant forks of content are not not redundant content forks. I look forward to your explanations of how black is white is hot is really cold, and Beethoven was actually a hardcore punk singer from Ulan Bator; it will be no more truthful than this content-fork-is-not-a-content-fork routine, but it might actually funny rather than just daft.
  6. No, the portal is not being maintained. That's another routine piece of portalista doublespeak, a phrase constructed to deceive.
    What's actually happening is that this portal is currently being intensively edited with the aim of staving off imminent deletion. There is no commitment from anyone to maintain it in the future: no individual and no WikiProject or task force has undertaken to maintain it. And the edits which are happening at the moment are actively degrading the portal, by expanding the farm of redundant forks and actually reversing the progress which had already been made in converting them to transclusions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • BHG assumes that I compared page views to that of the article; I didn't. My comparison is relative to page views that other similar portals receive. Articles almost always typically receive many more page views compared to portals. There is no "brazen lie" in my !vote; BHG should try to avoid assuming that everyone else thinks like they do, and should try to assume good faith. This is not a groupthink exercise. Cheers, North America1000 03:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The shameless liar NA1K is engaging in increasingly bizarre diversion tactics. The only groupthink exercise here is NA1K's attempts to redefine the meaning of plain English words in order to suit the tendentious agenda of NA1K's small clique of portalistas. This self-serving clique wants to preserve unread abandoned portals because it is their playground: they prefer creating and preserving these farms of unsourced content forks to creating actual verifiable encyclopedic content.
If we accepted NA1k's belated claim that they are comparing failing portals only to failing portals, the pageviews clause of POG would rendered pointless. That interpretation would mean that if all similar portals received precisely zero pageviews ever, any portal with zero pageviews would therefore meet the "large number of pageviews" requirement.
That would make a complete nonsense of having the clause in the first place.
If NA1K wants to get POG amended to support this absurd redefinition of language, then WP:RFC is thataway. Suggested proposal: "That WP:POG be amended to redefine large number of pageviews to mean near zero pageviews, in order to prevent the deletion of abandoned junk portals which nobody **reads".
Meanwhile, it is a disgrace that NA1K continues to disrupt MFDs by shamelessly posting such utter nonsense. If "large" doesn't actually mean "large", then language has no purpose. Such contempt for the ordinary meaning of words is dishonest wikilawyering at its worst. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer – Since I've been maligned here above in such a crude, uncivil and unnecessary manner, a closing statement. Under BHG's line of logic, then the {{Orphan}} template should not exist. If a portal were to have zero links to it in other areas of Wikipedia, it's common sense that it would receive low page views. Conversely, if 1,000 links exist linking to a portal, strategically placed in highly topically-aligned areas that receive decent traffic, it's common sense that page views will quite likely increase, at least sometimes. Makes perfect sense, really. Be sure to check out WP:ORP, where it states, "Orphaned articles, since they have no links to them from other pages, are difficult to find, and are most likely to be found only by searching, or by chance. Because of this, few people know they exist, and therefore, they receive less readership and improvement from those who would be able to improve them" (bold emphasis mine). This also makes perfect sense. I'm no liar, and the constant insults posted here and elsewhere are wholly inappropriate and do absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia. I anticipate the potential for yet another reply with yet another long rant of anger, which I won't be responding to if occurrent. Bye. North America1000 05:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: I'm looking at List of Seventh-day Adventists to see who should be added. But I still got to get back to work on that list at some time, needs more references to be added and some people are in the wrong place.Catfurball (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I have done some work on the portal and I'm still note done must do more research.Catfurball (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am almost done cleaning up this portal, what a job.Catfurball (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. Two editors -- Catfurball and NA1K -- have done various bits of editing to this portal for the purpose of trying to rescue it from deletion. However, WP:POG does not require a once-in-12-years flurry of activity. It requires ongoing maintenance, and it specifically says that portals need "large numbers of maintainers".
We do not here have that "large numbers of maintainers". Neither NA1K or Catfurball have made any pledge to engage in ongoing maintenance, and if NA1K does reply with such a pledge, it will have zero credibility since NA1K repeatedly does this exercise of patching up a portal just enough to stave off deletion, then moving on.
So right now, we don't have that large number of maintainers. We actually have zero maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment That is not true there is a maintainer for this portal.Catfurball (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to closer – I signed up to be a maintainer of this portal on 9 July 2019 (UTC) (diff). I plan on maintaining it periodically if it is retained. North America1000 08:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

July 1, 2019Edit

User:Aurorion/SwiggyEdit

User:Aurorion/Swiggy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already deleted in article space afterWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiggy. Deleted 7 times in article space and 5 times in draft space. A deletion decision in draft space will permit future tendentious re-creations to be sent to G4.

Have not yet looked into whether there is undisclosed paid editing or sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiggy, and due to it being promotion without suitable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Whoa - I thought it was harmless to leave this in draft space. Could someone please explain why it's a problem if this remains in my account's draft space?

Secondly, I strongly believe that Swiggy is definitely a very notable company now. It is no longer a flash-in-the-pan startup, but rather the leading hyperlocal delivery company in India valued at above $3 billion. And there are plenty of reliable sources with sufficient coverage of the company to establish its notability.

Last year (wow, I had no idea so much time had passed!) I had requested to undelete the page, but an Admin had suggested that the article be restored to draft space instead. I was planning to work on the page to improve it with RS etc., but I didn't get the time for that.

Now, if someone else can work on the page, I would be happy to let them. But I don't think the page should be deleted. And unless there is any problem with the page remaining in my user draft space, why not keep it? If noone else takes the initiative, I will work on it sometime in the next few months. Aurorion (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - The problems with leaving it in your draft space include that the title is protected against creation in draft space. If you would like to move this draft to Draft:Swiggy, you may request the deleting administrator to unprotect it, or you may request Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)]
  • Question - Do you have any connection with Swiggy, such as but not limited to employment? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Response - I don't have any direct connection to Swiggy. To be clear, I am not employed with Swiggy, and never have been in the past. If I actually had any connection to Swiggy which made me particularly interested in making a promotional page for the company on WP, wouldn't I have actually spent some time to work on the page in the past year or so since it was put in my draft space? :) My intention for requesting that it be put into my draft space and opened for editing was purely from a neutral point of view. But like I mentioned above, unfortunately I could not devote much time to it since then. Aurorion (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I would still love to work on a page for Swiggy, but perhaps only after a few months once I am free from some other stuff I am busy with at the moment. What would be the implications of moving it to Draft:Swiggy like you suggested? Would other WP editors be free to work on it, until it reaches a good enough state that it's suitable to be moved to mainspace? Would appreciate some clarity on this, thanks. Aurorion (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak draftify: There's some statements in there that could be taken as promotional, but otherwise, everything seems fine. With a new author, this page seems fine as is to stick in the Draft namespace. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 20:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

June 25, 2019Edit

Portal:New MexicoEdit

Portal:New Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned micro-portal. Only 2 selected articles and 2 selected biogs. No new content added since June 2008‎.

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 in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 16 pageviews per day, compared with 3,332 views per day for the head article New Mexico. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I made several edits to the "Did You Know's" in 2018. There's a lot of room for improving the portal. -Whatsit369 (talk) (contributions) 23:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Has had time to mature, which hasn't happened. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles
North Dakota 8 1869 Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. 233.63 0.43% 12
New Hampshire 8 2394 No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. 299.25 0.33% 4
South Dakota 8 1726 No maintenance since 2010. 215.75 0.46% 6
Montana 9 3786 Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. 420.67 0.24% 12
Idaho 9 2377 Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. 264.11 0.38% 4
Maine 10 2999 299.90 0.33%
West Virginia 10 2644 Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. 264.40 0.38%
Vermont 10 2081 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. 208.10 0.48% 8
Nebraska 10 2929 Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. 292.90 0.34% 2
Wyoming 11 3713 Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. 337.55 0.30% 5
Iowa 11 2516 No maintenance since 2011. 228.73 0.44% 15
South Carolina 12 2409 Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. 200.75 0.50% 4
Delaware 12 2483 Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. 206.92 0.48%
Rhode Island 12 2760 Last article update 2012. 230.00 0.43% 24
Wisconsin 13 3132 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.92 0.42%
Oklahoma 13 2708 Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. 208.31 0.48% 63
Nevada 14 2600 185.71 0.54%
Indiana 14 2787 Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. 199.07 0.50%
Kentucky 14 2927 No maintenance since 2010. 209.07 0.48%
Kansas 14 2813 Originator inactive since 2014. 200.93 0.50%
Mississippi 14 2737 Originator inactive since 2012. 195.50 0.51%
Minnesota 15 3785 Originator inactive since 2018. 252.33 0.40%
Maryland 15 3315 Originator inactive since 2016. 221.00 0.45%
Connecticut 16 3109 Being reworked by MJL. 194.31 0.51%
Michigan 16 3912 Originator inactive since 2013 244.50 0.41%
Louisiana 16 3186 Originator inactive since 2007. 199.13 0.50%
New Mexico 16 3332 Originator inactive since 2013. 208.25 0.48%
North Carolina 16 3747 Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. 234.19 0.43% 1
Utah 16 2857 Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. 178.56 0.56% 46
Missouri 17 3424 Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. 201.41 0.50% 41
Georgia (state) 17 4088 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.47 0.42%
Washington 17 3881 After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) 228.29 0.44%
Alaska 18 6775 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. 376.39 0.27% 28
Tennessee 18 2972 Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. 165.11 0.61% 11

A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.

A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.

This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: This portal contains basic information about the state but needs updating and improvement. It would be far better to mark this portal as needing updating and improvement rather than simply deleting it. It is far easier to rebuild a portal than to create a portal from scratch. For the status of regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 14:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
No. It is easier to build a new portal from scratch than to try to improve an existing portal if the existing portal has a failed architecture that is an honorable experiment that did not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to write of updating and improvement, but the reality is that this is just another of the many hundred of portals which languished for a decade without being improve or updated. It gets too few readers to attract the efforts of editors, so if it is kept it will simply continue to rot.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Buaidh's comment is just more of the magical thinking which a decade ago saw editors create hundreds of portals on a high-maintenance model ... but a decade later we can see the evidence that there simply aren't enough editors willing and able to maintain this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If an editor wants to create a new geographic portal when a previous one has been deleted, they do not need to start from scratch. Requests for Undeletion is to the left and Deletion Review is to the right. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Cheerio, North America1000 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No. It is easier to build a new portal from scratch than to try to improve an existing portal if the existing portal has a failed architecture that is an honorable experiment that did not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's personal view of the guidelines is not supported by the long-standing text of the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Per the evidence above this one has not attracted either readers or maintainers.
XFD decisions should be made on the basis of actual guidelines, not on the basis of one editor's desire to apply the Humpty Dumpty principle that ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." @Northamerica1000 is an admin, and should know better than to try reducing this discussion to Alice in Wonderland, so I hope that the closing admin will discount this flight of fancy.
In other discussions, NA1K has offered to to do a rapid update of the portal. I note that there is no such offer here, and instead NA1K proposes tagging the portal to ask someone else to do the update.
The that a solution lies in tagging a portal with {{update}} is risible, and it is demonstrably made in bad faith. As NA1K well knows, very few editors work on portals: they are complex to edit, and have low readership, so editors rightly choose to put their energies elsewhere. That is why the majority of portals which existed a year ago had rotted for years or even for a decade: there are not enough willing maintainers to sustain such a wide number of portals.
The idea that any portal will magically attract maintainers might have made sense a decade ago in the era when the editor base was rapidly growing ... but n 2019, with editor numbers much much lower, it's not just a flight of fancy or magical thinking: it's a straightforward denial of reality.
What this portal needs, like other abandoned portals, is not just two hours of rapid update to raise it just above a deletion threshold. what it needs is:
  1. updating
  2. a complete overhaul to avoid replicating the functionality provided by the new wiki technologies (see below)
  3. ongoing maintenance
@Northamerica1000 is bringing here the approach used in their days with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, which was to preserve some stub on a barely notable topic by adding a few sourced factoids which brought it just over the WP:Notability threshold. That approach in article space just left us with perma-stubs, and when applied to portals it just preserves abandoned portals to rot again.
NA1K repeatedly says of abandoned portals that "there is only so much one person can do", and I agree entirely. One person may be able to rush around like a firefighter on amphetamines and push a series of portals over the threshold, but that one person cannot maintain the dozens of portals which have no other maintainer.
NA1K's approach is to preserve portals at any cost, regardless of quality and regardless of whether they are maintained. They objected angrily to populating Category:All portals because it was "being used by deletionists". They propose the propose deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals, because they prefer not to identify abandon portals.
The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "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". Note that phrase "kept up to date". Not updated once in a drive-by-session, but regularly maintained. NA1K is not even offering to do that.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game, and NA1K doesn't even suggest any way in which they intend to avoid duplicating the new built-in features.
After a decade of widespread abandonment of portals, hundreds of recent MFDs show that consensus has turned against indefinitely keeping this sort of abandoned junk in the hope that every few years it may get the sort of sporadic update which NA1K promises. It is time for NA1K to stop defending the junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very similar issues to Portal:Wisconson, in that the only activity is when the portal for MfD; that dynamic can work well at AfD, but a portal is different, without regular upkeep, an abandoned portal only diminishes from the quality of WP in the eyes of a reader. Another out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox (at again, the navbox is just pasted straight in). As per Portal:Wisconson, this has a main article that is also tagged for issues, thus being itself under concern for quality. Again, we have to face the reality of this portal – we just do not have the resources/interest to run it, and we don't even have the resources/interest to maintain the main article. That may change, but unfortunately, it does not show any sign of doing so. Britishfinance (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've performed some preliminary updating of the portal, and will continue to work on it as time allows. It needs work, but has plenty of potential. It's much easier to work on an existing portal than to start over from scratch. Take it from me, as I am an experienced portal editor. Hopefully it is retained, which will make it much easier to update, expand and improve. Cheers, North America1000 09:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've now added myself as a maintainer for the portal (diff, diff). If it is retained, I can expand it further. I worry about spending lots of time to really rework and overhaul it immediately, because if it's deleted nevertheless, my work would be wasted, which would be a shame, and a waste of my precious time, which I value. Cheers, North America1000 10:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ColoradoEdit

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

Abandoned micro-portal. Only 2 selected articles and 2 selected biogs. No new content added since 2008‎.

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 in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 24 pageviews per day, compared with 3,625 views per day for the head article Colorado. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Has had time to mature, which hasn't happened. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Portals are not wine or cheese and do not improve with age, but inferior wine does not improve with age either.
Oh. Wait a minute. Colorado's best known agricultural product isn't wine or cheese, but beef. Beef has a limited maturation schedule also. It only improves for about a year while it is on the hoof, and then is only dry-aged for weeks, and then has a shelf life of about a week after it is cut and packaged. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles
North Dakota 8 1869 Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. 233.63 0.43% 12
New Hampshire 8 2394 No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. 299.25 0.33% 4
South Dakota 8 1726 No maintenance since 2010. 215.75 0.46% 6
Montana 9 3786 Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. 420.67 0.24% 12
Idaho 9 2377 Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. 264.11 0.38% 4
Maine 10 2999 299.90 0.33%
West Virginia 10 2644 Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. 264.40 0.38%
Vermont 10 2081 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. 208.10 0.48% 8
Nebraska 10 2929 Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. 292.90 0.34% 2
Wyoming 11 3713 Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. 337.55 0.30% 5
Iowa 11 2516 No maintenance since 2011. 228.73 0.44% 15
South Carolina 12 2409 Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. 200.75 0.50% 4
Delaware 12 2483 Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. 206.92 0.48%
Rhode Island 12 2760 Last article update 2012. 230.00 0.43% 24
Wisconsin 13 3132 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.92 0.42%
Oklahoma 13 2708 Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. 208.31 0.48% 63
Nevada 14 2600 185.71 0.54%
Indiana 14 2787 Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. 199.07 0.50%
Kentucky 14 2927 No maintenance since 2010. 209.07 0.48%
Kansas 14 2813 Originator inactive since 2014. 200.93 0.50%
Mississippi 14 2737 Originator inactive since 2012. 195.50 0.51%
Minnesota 15 3785 Originator inactive since 2018. 252.33 0.40%
Maryland 15 3315 Originator inactive since 2016. 221.00 0.45%
Connecticut 16 3109 Being reworked by MJL. 194.31 0.51%
Michigan 16 3912 Originator inactive since 2013 244.50 0.41%
Louisiana 16 3186 Originator inactive since 2007. 199.13 0.50%
New Mexico 16 3332 Originator inactive since 2013. 208.25 0.48%
North Carolina 16 3747 Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. 234.19 0.43% 1
Utah 16 2857 Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. 178.56 0.56% 46
Missouri 17 3424 Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. 201.41 0.50% 41
Georgia (state) 17 4088 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.47 0.42%
Washington 17 3881 After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) 228.29 0.44%
Alaska 18 6775 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. 376.39 0.27% 28
Tennessee 18 2972 Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. 165.11 0.61% 11

A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.

A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.

This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: I update this portal on a regular basis as part of WikiProject Colorado. Updates are normally made to portal subpages and seldom to the portal page itself. All the data on this portal is current. We post all Colorado Wikimedia events on this portal. This deletion request seems to be aimed at me personally for opposing portal deletions on principle. For the status of regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 14:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Buaidh, grow up and drop the victim spiel. It got old a long time ago.
This portal is one of dozens nominated for deletion on grounds of abandonment, and I was not aware of your involvement until you mentioned it.
I have no idea what pages you claim to be updating, but the fact remains that as stated in the nomination this portal has Only 2 selected articles and 2 selected biogs. No new content added since 2008‎. I checked the content subpages, and that was the basis of the nomiantion.
If you want a noticeboard, you already ave Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado. 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 Computer graphics and its poor navboxes Template:Computer graphics. Any use as a noticeboard is a subsidiary purpose, and is insufficient to justify the existence of a portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
At 71, I've probably grown up as much as I'm going to. The fact that you folks have no idea how portals are updated raises a serious question about deleting hundreds of portals. Your portal deletion cadre is well intended but seriously misinformed. If you don't understand how portals work, you probably should not be deleting them. The Colorado article and WikiProject Colorado can provide most of the Portal:Colorado information, but there is no link between the article and the WikiProject. This means that users who wish to contribute have no direction to the WikiProject. That is a great way to reduce user interest in participating. I guess you only want super-editors participating. This super-editor has about had his fill. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Buaidh, that's a pity. Some more maturity would be v helpful.
As you well know, I understand perfectly well how portals are updated: by editing sub-pages. Sadly it happens all too rarely.
In this case, eleven years after the portal was created, it still has Only 2 selected articles and 2 selected biogs, and no new articles have been added since 20-08. I am sorry that you find this simple fact difficult to understand, but it's verifiably true.
I just checked your claim that you update this portal on a regular basis. You portalspace edits this year show a bunch of tweaks to Portal:Colorado/State Facts and Portal:Colorado/Events.
Portal:Colorado/State Facts is simply a badly-formatted, unsourced fork of the infobox of Colorado. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but a malformed, unsourced fork adds no value.
As to the events page, that advertising belongs on the project page.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Some time ago I deleted the selected articles and selected biographies because they did not seem relevant to the portal. If it will change your mind, I will be happy to reinsert them or anything else you feel is lacking. Give me a list. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep THere may not be a lot of updating on these portals, I don't think deletion is the answer at this point. It may be worth looking in to what can be done to make them more active. - Scarpy (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Scarpy, it has been abandoned for ten years with a pathetically small set of topics.
If you don't want it deleted, what's your alternative?
Pray for it to magically improve itself?
Wait for a hundred years?
Building a portal which actually adds value takes a lot of work, and the historical pattern is that few portals attract enough editors to do that work. So unless you have some actual plan for change, keeping it just prolongs the waste of readers' time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Please show us what you consider to be a portal that adds real value, and we can upgrade many of these portals to meet your standards. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Buaidh, the question of what makes a decent portal has been discussed ad nauseam, so if you aren't already ware of what make a decent portal, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
Anyway, here are two examples:
  1. Portal:Military history of Australia, with about 800 subpages
  2. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, taking a very different approach, kinda like a mega-navbox.
The Australian one has has a large team of editors working on it. It must have taken several thousand person-hours of work to build.
Something like Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern could possibly be built in a few dozen hours, and will require less maintenance.
And that's the problem. As @Robert McClenon often notes, the multi-subpage model of portals are designed to be like a topic-specific version of the Main page, but most portals lack the resources required by that model.
The main page has several teams of editors working on it continuously; I guess that there is about 100 person hours of work going into it every day. Some multi-page portals are effectively maintained with less energy than the main page, but they do require significant ongoing effort.
The mega-navbox model needs less maintenance, but it does still need some work: ongoing disambiguation, addition of new articles, etc.
So whatever approach is taken, making a decent portal requires a huge amount of work to create, and a significant amount of ongoing maintenance. The reason that most portals are in such poor state is that hardly anyone wants to do that work ... which is unsurprising, because nearly all portals get abysmal viewing figures. Why put lots of energy into a type of page which almost nobody reads, when similar effort applied to articles gets a much higher return?
So Buaidh's promise that we can upgrade many of these portals to meet your standards looks fanciful. It looks to me like an assurance given by someone with little or no idea of how much work is involved or how low the returns are.
Are you really sure that you are up for this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
An all or nothing approach to portals seems a little impractical. If the same criteria were applied to articles, we'd loose about 95%. Right now I'm sick and up to my eyeballs in other WikiProjects. I'll see what we can do. Thanks for your helpful reply.  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Sigh.
  1. I am not advocating an an all or nothing approach to portals. I am trying to uphold the core principle of WP:PORTAL: "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". In other words, the purpose of a portal is to offer a lot more than the main page.
  2. Portals are not articles, so they have different deletion criteria. A portal is a device for navigating and/or showcasing the encyclopedic content which resides in articles. Just as categories are routinely deleted if they don't serve that purpose, portals which don't serve their purpose are routinely deleted at MFD — about 4,800 such redundant portals have deleted this year.
The problem here is that this portal is a massively degraded version of the head article Colorado: it doesn't even pass the bare minimum standards.
In any case, two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers nearly all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer (I have explained them below in my reply to NA1K). That means that the bar has been raised significantly: for a portal to actually add value in 2019, it has to do a lot more than a portal would have had to do five years ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Happy editing, North America1000 12:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's personal view of the guidelines is not supported by the long-standing text of the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Per the evidence above this one has not attracted either readers or maintainers.
XFD decisions should be made on the basis of actual guidelines, not on the basis of one editor's desire to apply the Humpty Dumpty principle that ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." @Northamerica1000 is an admin, and should know better than to try reducing this discussion to Alice in Wonderland, so I hope that the closing admin will discount this flight of fancy.
In other discussions, NA1K has offered to to do a rapid update of the portal. I note that there is no such offer here, and instead NA1K proposes tagging the portal to ask someone else to do the update.
The that a solution lies in tagging a portal with {{update}} is risible, and it is demonstrably made in bad faith. As NA1K well knows, very few editors work on portals: they are complex to edit, and have low readership, so editors rightly choose to put their energies elsewhere. That is why the majority of portals which existed a year ago had rotted for years or even for a decade: there are not enough willing maintainers to sustain such a wide number of portals.
The idea that any portal will magically attract maintainers might have made sense a decade ago in the era when the editor base was rapidly growing ... but n 2019, with editor numbers much much lower, it's not just a flight of fancy or magical thinking: it's a straightforward denial of reality.
What this portal needs, like other abandoned portals, is not just two hours of rapid update to raise it just above a deletion threshold. what it needs is:
  1. updating
  2. a complete overhaul to avoid replicating the functionality provided by the new wiki technologies (see below)
  3. ongoing maintenance
@Northamerica1000 is bringing here the approach used in their days with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, which was to preserve some stub on a barely notable topic by adding a few sourced factoids which brought it just over the WP:Notability threshold. That approach in article space just left us with perma-stubs, and when applied to portals it just preserves abandoned portals to rot again.
NA1K repeatedly says of abandoned portals that "there is only so much one person can do", and I agree entirely. One person may be able to rush around like a firefighter on amphetamines and push a series of portals over the threshold, but that one person cannot maintain the dozens of portals which have no other maintainer.
NA1K's approach is to preserve portals at any cost, regardless of quality and regardless of whether they are maintained. They objected angrily to populating Category:All portals because it was "being used by deletionists". They propose the propose deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals, because they prefer not to identify abandon portals.
The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "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". Note that phrase "kept up to date". Not updated once in a drive-by-session, but regularly maintained. NA1K is not even offering to do that.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game, and NA1K doesn't even suggest any way in which they intend to avoid duplicating the new built-in features.
After a decade of widespread abandonment of portals, hundreds of recent MFDs show that consensus has turned against indefinitely keeping this sort of abandoned junk in the hope that every few years it may get the sort of sporadic update which NA1K promises. It is time for NA1K to stop defending the junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Just for my information, how many first level portals have been deleted and how many still exist. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Regional portals do differ from other portals in that Wikipedia users live in those regions. While interest in general subject portals is driven by interest in those subjects, interest in regional portals is driven by both regional interest and regional pride. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently, 1450 articles link to Portal:Colorado. The portal has had 1012 page views in the past 30 days. The portal currently has 48 subpages. For other regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic_portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Since User:Buaidh says correctly that regional portals differ from other portals in that users live in them and have regional pride, I would be interested in comments on my recent essay contrasting support for regional portals with the idea that portals should attract readers and portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Buaidh, the fact that people live is regions irrelevant. They also live in towns , villages, streets and buildings, and we don't have portals for those.
There are many factors which may drive a reader's interest in a topic, and geography is only one of the factors. Personally, I read articles about places which are not near where I live, because I know my own area already.
As noted in the nomination, in Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got only 24 pageviews per day, compared with 3,625 views per day for the head article Colorado. The fact that 1450 articles link to the portal means that there is no possibility of under-advertisment being used as a defence for the lack of interest. The portal is well-advertised, but despite that and Buaidh's claim of regional pride, the fact is that readers do not read the portal. They prefer the article by a ratio of about 150:1.
I think that what Buaidh really means is that he personally has pride in his region, and believes that they should therefore be a portal about his region. But we don't create Wikipedia for editors; we create it for readers. And the readers don't want it.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all or delete all state portals After reading this discussion, I think the question that needs to be asked is: "Do US State portals add value to Wikipedia?" If the answer is yes, keep them all; and if the answer is no, delete them all. On a personal note, however, I don't know what User:BrownHairedGirl's feud with User:Buaidh is all about (it certainly appears to be deeper than this one disputed deletion), but many of these comments seem highly inappropriate. Starting a discussion with "grow up and drop the victim spiel" is, frankly, very saddening to see from an administrator and definitely doesn't appear to be proper WP:WQ. --Pennstatephil (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pennstatephil: I did not start the discussion with that comment. I made it in reply to Buaidh because I have learnt the hard way through many unpleasant encounters with Buaidh that his response to any proposed action he doesn't like consists of three factors: 1/ malicious allegations of bad faith against those who propose or support the actions; 2/ personal attacks on the individuals or group of editors with whom he disagrees; 3/ when challenged to desist, he then plays the victim card and tries draw attention away from his misconduct by eliciting sympathy through an announcement that he is dying.
I have seen this cycle often enough that I am no longer will to play the game. So per WP:SPADE, I chose to call it out at the start, when Buaidh made his unfounded allegation.
Note that since then, Buaidh has doubled down on his disruptive antics by abusing the mass-messaging tool to directly message 229 editors for a purpose other than which they signed up for, viz, Buaidh's blatant WP:CANVASSing of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Regional PortalsEdit

Some editors have stated that particular levels of regions should have portals. User:Kusma wrote (in April, in an MFD): "all countries should have portals". User:Northamerica1000 wrote: "I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal." Such statements raise a two-part question, having to do with people, and with policies.

Who Should Do What?Edit

The first part of the question is: Who is expected to do what in order to provide the portal? Should Wikipedia provide and maintain a portal? Should Wikipedia provide a portal without maintaining it? Should Wikipedia provide a portal, contingent on having a portal maintainer and a portal maintenance plan? Should the Internet, of which Wikipedia is a prominent site, provide a portal? If only that, the government of the nation, state, or province can and almost certainly does provide and maintain a portal in the form of its web site, as do lesser regions such as counties, cantons, districts, communes, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, and villages.

If Wikipedia is expected to provide and maintain a portal, how can that obligation be reconciled with Wikipedia is not compulsory? If Wikipedia is only expected to provide an empty portal, what good is that? It appears that the implication is that Wikipedia is expected to provide a portal to a maintainer and to continue to keep the portal facing outward toward the readers whether or not it is being maintained. Portal advocates who think that particular levels of regions "should have" portals should clarify what obligation they are implying and on whom. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Impact on Policies and GuidelinesEdit

The second part of the question is how the idea that countries or states "should have" portals should be reflected in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. At present, the page that is designated as the Portal Guidelines states that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers. Portal advocates have focused on the reference to "broad subject areas" and have disregarded the two-part reference to readers and portal maintainers. At present, the status of the portal guidelines is in dispute. Those who would like to retain existing regional portals, and possibly create more regional portals, may either deal with the existing guidelines or propose to revise them. If they prefer to deal with the existing guidelines, there are two issues. The first is that the status of the guidelines is in doubt, appearing to have been a failed proposal. The second is that the existing document refers to readers and maintainers, who cannot simply be assumed or willed into existence. Since the present (contested) guidelines refer not simply to broad subject areas, but to broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers, any specific portal can be shown by observation not to be attracting readers or maintainers.

The other option for the advocates of regional portals, or for anyone who wants to provide better guidelines with regard to portals, would be to publish a Request for Comments to implement new portal guidelines, either the old guidelines, or a slightly revised version of the old guidelines, or an entirely new set of guidelines. In that case, advocates of regional portals should be on notice that the new guidelines either should explicitly identify certain subjects that are considered portal-worthy even without maintenance, or it can be understood that regional portals, like other subject areas, are only considered to be broad subject areas if they demonstrate that they attract readers and maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Thank you. We've created a regional WikiProject or work group for every member state of the United Nations and many dependent states and regions. It is the responsibility of each regional WikiProject to maintain its own portal. The WikiProjects for small and non-English-speaking countries usually have very few members, and in some cases, no active members. This may make portal maintenance very difficult for these WikiProjects. These small and non-English-speaking regions are, however, precisely the regions from which we are most interested in attracting new editors. These regions often have a disproportionately minor coverage in Wikipedia. (Wikipedia knows every time Cardi B sneezes, but seems to care little about Eswatini.) If you look at User:Buaidh/Geographic portals, many of the deleted portal are from these small and non-English-speaking regions. I think WikiProject Portals should make their top priority to assist these undermaned regions rebuild their portals. I think the creation of a Regional portals work group under WikiProject Portals would be a great idea and I would certainly help with this effort.

Every article about a region should link to the regional portal in the See also section, and most do. If that portal is deleted or redirected, it can cause user confusion. Every article about a region should also link to the regional WikiProject on the talk page, but many novice or casual users may not realize this. This means that the regional portal link may be the best way to direct these users to the regional WikiProject. While many people accuse me of being a cheerleader, I think every regional portal should encourage visitors to participate in the regional WikiProject and Wikimedia events.

On a personal level, I was not involved in the creation of Portal:Colorado, but I’ve voluntarily overseen the portal for about nine years. My only activity has been to keep the portal up to date and add a few minor features. Until, User:BrownHairedGirl gave me some pointers above, I was ignorant of what a portal should be. I exert most of my efforts trying to coordinate regional WikiProjects and their templates and categories. When I saw regional portals being deleted, I was outraged because so much of my work links to the regional portals. Now I understand why they were deleted, but I do feel it is far better to rebuild these regional portals rather than recreate them from scratch. If this is too much work for Wikipedia, then we need to rethink how we should reach out to users in small and non-English-speaking regions. (My brain is very geographically oriented. I care very much about the residents of the Forgotten Regions.)

If we need to add guidelines specifically for the regional portals, I think we should. What are your thoughts? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Buaidh, we don't need more instruction creep. We have a guideline already: 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 portal has not attracted maintainers, and it has also been shunned by readers. Which part of that is so hard to understand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Buaidh: I'm a resident of Colorado, a friend of Buaidh's, one of the leaders of the Wikimedians of Colorado User Group, and represented them at Wikimedia Conference 2018. I'm glad to have learned a number of interesting things about this complicated arena of Wikipedia from the comments here, having had only a smattering of experiences with portals over the years. In terms of helping under-resourced regions, offhand, it seems to me that we can be most helpful by pulling together relevant data, experiments and the like, and present it to them, and then ask them what they think. While there may be some who get portal fever, my guess is that both those sorts of analyses, and their thoughts and reactions, would mirror the findings that BrownHairedGirl and Robert McClenon have nicely documented here. I.e. I guess they would leverage their expertise more effectively in the world, and better represent their regions, by focusing first on the relevant regional and cultural articles. That would leverage the pageview trends as well as the new MediaWiki software features which provide an automatic rich media experience based on simple article links. And if they provide navboxes, and integrate them with WikiData, there is hope that many Wikipedia language projects around the world will automatically get articles based on their implicit metadata editing. The Catalan Wikipedia is an amazing example of that. That may rely on work in this English Wikipedia to improve syncing between our navboxes and Wikidata, but my main point is that we can do things to help them leverage their resources which may well be more effective than encouraging portal work. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't wish to spend the rest of my life defending portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Buaidh: the choice to spend the rest of [your] life defending portals is wholly yours. You can stop it any time you choose. I don't think you will choose it, because as I noted below the whole focus of your contribs to this site is building a social network (contrary to WP:NOTSOCIAL) ... but your decision to spend your energies getting outraged about the removal of unused pointless annexes to the encyclopedia is your decision, and yours alone.
So it is notable, tho wholly unsurprising, that you entirely ignored the central point of Nealmcb's recommendation that editors should be focusing first on the relevant regional and cultural articles.
Nealmcb is right that tools such as Wikidata are how connections are best made, and existing content better leveraged. But instead of looking at how to actually serve our readers and fulfill Wikipedia's mission of sharing knowledge, Buaidh's focus on his social club is leading him to expend vast amount of emotional energy getting het up about the deletion of an almost-unused annex to WP ... and now in easting vast amounts of his scarce time on this planet in creating a forest of unsourced, redundant content forks to serve up to the portal's risbily small readership through a completely misconceived structure.
(The subpage model is so fundamentally flawed that it would make a great study in the dogged pursuit of complete failure by editors who willfully ignore facts because they are fixated on pursuing their obsession. It relies on content forks; it is ridiculously hard to maintain and or watchlist; it gets out of date unless maintained; the excerpts are redundant because the Wikimedia software creates automatic excerpts for each link; it does not provide the reader with even a count of how many topics are available, let alone a clear list of available topics; and to even get a lucky dip of whatever other topics ate available, readers have to do the bizarre and counter-intuitive step of refreshing the page).
So yes, editors who want to serve readers will inded follow Nealmcb's sound advice, and work on articles. But those like Buaidh who are just here to build a social club will continue to ignore that advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thank you for reading my comments. I have tried to explain why regional portals are highly important to the regional WikiProjects. I cannot change your mind, but I will strive to improve this portal until it is deleted. I think we can make this worthy portal.  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Buaidh: the underlying problem here is that you treat Wikipedia as social media. Your efforts are all focused on userboxes, Wikiprojects, and the categories and templates which interlink them. To that end you have created an impenetrable walled garden of pages to facilitate editors who want to festoon their userpages with userboxes and categorise themselves.
By contrast, your articlespace contributions are almost entirely trivial, consisting overwhelmingly of adding items to Timeline of Colorado history.
So it is wholly unsurprising that your explanation above is almost entirely about editors and WikPeojects. That's what you do: editors and WikiPojects.
However, your comment entirely omits recognition of the core fact that Wikipedia is not social media. It is an encyclopedia.
The purpose of a portal is to assist readers, not editors. But your comment above is entirely the opposite: it is all about driving editors and readers to WikiProjects, and to encourage visitors to participate in the regional WikiProject and Wikimedia events.
So, as with everything else you, your outrage here and your serial misconduct (spamming, canvassing, making false and malicious allegations) derives from the core problems that you are not actually here to build an encyclopedia: you are primarily here to build a social club, apparently with a big emphasis on keeping it local enough that you have meetups.
 
Average daily pageviews of portals in April–June 2019
Hence your demand that the portals project should make their top priority to assist these undermaned regions rebuild their portals. (Aside: toparks for sexist language. If that's what you were aiming for, you got a bullseye.)
It would be hard to design any workplan worse suited to helping our readers. Look at the graph above: you want the portal project to concentrate its effort on the extreme right of the graph, on the least-viewed portals, and you want them to do that not to help readers, but as a morale booster for the editors who don't exist.
Your friend User:Nealmcb commented above and wisely recommended putting effort into articles, not portals. That's very sound advice, because readers read articles not portals, by a ratio of over 100:1 in the case of head articles alone, so working on actual articles is how we serve readers.
It's long past time that those like Buaidh who want to use Wikipedia as a social club were sent off to some separate site -- maybe called something like an en.WikiFans.orf -- rather than filling up the enyclopedia's workspaces with your focus on a social club. Sadly, Buaidh is very clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Outlines and IndexesEdit

Two valuable guides to articles about Colorado are found in the Resources section of Portal:Colorado. The Outline of Colorado lists Colorado-related articles by subject area. The Index of Colorado-related articles lists articles about Colorado alphabetically. These two resources are valuable to anyone searching for specific Colorado information. WikiProject Outlines supports subject outlines and WikiProject Indexes supports subject indexes. Not all regional WikiProjects have embraced outlines and indexes, although we have encouraged them to do so.

Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern which User:BrownHairedGirl cited above uses an attractive but abbreviated outline of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern-related articles. Should we elevate or incorporate the Outline of Colorado and the Index of Colorado-related articles into the Colorado portal? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 22:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please view the current Portal:Colorado page information. The Colorado portal is being maintained and is being watched. (1265 views in the past 30 days.) Thank you for drawing attention to the Colorado portal. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

While the portal is at MFD and being scrutinised by editors, pageviews are distorted by that editorial scrutiny. That's why in MFD discussions I use the pageview figures for the period 01/01/2019 - 28/02/2019, before the intense scrutiny began. Also, we use the daily average rather than total pageviews, so that different periods can be easily compared. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Blatant canvassingEdit
  • Closing admin please note that this discussion has been the subject of extensive canvassing by User:Buaidh, on 7 July 2019‎ (today).
Buaidh abused the mass message delivery service by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Invitation list to send a message which was unrelated to the lists's purpose of invitations to meetups. Buaidh abused this facility to send a message[21] to 229 editors in clear violation of several parts of WP:CANVASS:
  1. Excessive cross-posting
  2. Campaigning: the message: is clearly biased
  3. Votestacking: the message is clearly partisan.
This is by far the worst case of canvassing by excessive cross-posting that I have seen in 13 years on Wikipedia. So i will take it to ANI later. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Blatant harassmentEdit
  • Closing administrator please note: When a portal is nominated for deletion, editors may attempt to improve the portal and thus avoid the need for deletion. I sent a message this morning asking WikiProject Colorado editors for assitance in upgrading and maintaining this portal. We are meeting this Saturday at my home. I did not ask for any comments to this forum. Please see User:Buaidh/letter.
I have been the target of demeaning comments and general harrasment by the user above. The user above has made numerous unwanted edits to this portal that she wishes to delete. I want all this to stop.  Buaidh  talk contribs 19:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The concept of unwanted edits is pure WP:OWNership.
You used a list whose purpose is invitations to meetups. Your message did not mention a meetup. That is abuse of the mass messaging system.
Objecting to blatant canvassing is not harassment.
Objecting to the removal of cleanup tags is not harassment.
What is harassment is the barrage of personal attacks launched by Buaidh, including the maliciously false allegation that even nominating the portal for deletion was harassment of him.[22]
Note that Buaidh pulled the same sort of stunt at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maine, making a barrage of personalised attacks on those who supported deleting that one.
The next stage in this cycle is that Buaidh will announce that he is dying. This is somehow supposed to redeem his repeated abuse of consensus-forming processes, and justify his subsequent whining when called out on his misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I ask that anyone interested in this mini-feud compare the tone of our respective comments. I have repeatedly tried to reach an amicable compromise. I have no grievance with the above user. I merely want to avoid the deletion of Portal:Colorado. I wish all this would stop. I have other regional WikiProjects to attend to. Thank you,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the standard cycle of Buaidh conduct:
  1. Mkae baseless allegations against other editors
  2. Flagrantly abuse wikipedia processes
  3. Denounce challenges to the misconduct.
If you want this to stop, Buaidh, the solution is in your hands. Clean up your act: Drop the WP:OWNership, stop making false and malicious allegations of harassment, stop spamming. Stop canvassing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:POG doesn't say that portals have to be updated frequently or get large numbers of page views. It does say that portals should be about broad, diverse topics, but US states meet that standard (at least as it is usually interpreted). The fact this hasn't got many readers or maintainers is more down to the failure of portals as a general concept rather than anything with this particular subject. A decision to get rid of portals as a concept would have to be taken at a higher level than individual MfDs, and the last time this was discussed the decision was not to get rid of them. Hut 8.5 06:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, @Hut 8.5, I'm afraid that all the points yo make about the guidelines are wrong.
The lead of WP:POG says "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".
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that's an overly generous interpretation. The first sentence says that unmaintained portals are more likely to be deleted, but that isn't a statement that a portal can or should be deleted just for being unmaintained. If that was what was meant then I'm not sure why it doesn't say that explicitly. The second sentence says that portals have to be about broad subject areas, because these are more likely to attract readers and maintainers, but this doesn't mean a portal which doesn't get much of either has to be deleted. I suspect that most portals on Wikipedia don't get many views or frequent updates, but the community has rejected the idea of getting rid of portals in general and that's something we have to abide by here. I appreciate the aim here but I think it's better done as part of a change to the guideline or an RfC instead of piecemeal MfDs. Hut 8.5 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Status of regional portalsEdit
More off-topic stuff from Buaidh

There has been a deletionist movement to remove some or most of the regional portals. These regional portals have been deleted a few at a time in order to keep a low profile and not alarm users. I’ve compiled a list of national and state/provincial/territorial portals at User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Two regional portal deletion summaries follow.

To date, the following national portals have been deleted:

  1. Portal:Angola has been deleted.
  2. Portal:Antigua and Barbuda has been deleted and redirected.
  3. Portal:Barbados has been deleted and redirected.
  4. Portal:Brunei has been deleted.
  5. Portal:Comoros has been deleted.
  6. Portal:Cook Islands has been deleted and redirected.
  7. Portal:Dominica has been deleted and redirected.
  8. Portal:Equatorial Guinea has been deleted.
  9. Portal:Eswatini has been deleted.
  10. Portal:Federated States of Micronesia has been deleted.
  11. Portal:Fiji has been deleted and redirected.
  12. Portal:Greenland has been deleted and redirected.
  13. Portal:Honduras has been deleted and redirected.
  14. Portal:Kiribati has been deleted.
  15. Portal:Kosovo has been deleted.
  16. Portal:Lesotho has been deleted.
  17. Portal:Liechtenstein has been deleted.
  18. Portal:Marshall Islands has been deleted.
  19. Portal:Mongolia has been deleted.
  20. Portal:Myanmar has been deleted.
  21. Portal:Nauru has been deleted.
  22. Portal:Niue has been deleted and redirected.
  23. Portal:Palau has been deleted.
  24. Portal:Qatar has been deleted.
  25. Portal:San Marino has been deleted.
  26. Portal:Seychelles has been deleted.
  27. Portal:Solomon Islands has been deleted.
  28. Portal:Tonga has been deleted and redirected.
  29. Portal:Vanuatu has been deleted and redirected.
  30. Portal:Yemen has been deleted.
  31. Portal:Zimbabwe has been deleted.
Portal:Papua New Guinea is being considered for deletion above.
The combined Portal:Korea is also being considered for deletion above.

While many of these nations are small, some have substantial population. All this shows very unequal treatment of these nations. In Europe, only Portal:Kosovo, Portal:Liechtenstein, and Portal:San Marino have been deleted. Is Wikipedia Eurocentric?

To date, the following state/provincial/territorial portals have been deleted:

  1. Australia – None of the eight states and territories have been deleted. Of the eight eternal territories, three have been deleted and five were never created.
  2. British Crown Dependencies – Of the three dependencies, Portal:Guersey was never created.
  3. British Overseas Territories – Of the 14 territories, five have been deleted and five were never created.
  4. Canada – None of the 13 provinces and territories have been deleted.
  5. ChinaPortal:Macau has been deleted and redirected.
  6. FinlandPortal:Åland Islands has been deleted and redirected.
  7. France – Nine of 11 external departments have been deleted.
  8. Germany – None of the 16 states have been deleted
  9. India – 17 of the 29 states and all seven of the Union territories have been deleted and redirected.
  10. Mexico – All 31 states and Portal:Mexico City have been deleted and redirected.
  11. Netherlands – All three Caribbean nations and all three Caribbean municipalities have been deleted and redirected.
  12. New ZealandPortal:Tokelau has been deleted and redirected.
  13. NigeriaPortal:Rivers State has been deleted and redirected.
  14. Pakistan – All six provinces and territories have been deleted and redirected, but not the capital territory.
  15. Portugal – Both Portal:Azores and Portal:Madeira have been deleted and redirected.
  16. SpainPortal:Catalonia and Portal:Canary Islands have been deleted and redirected.
  17. United Arab Emirates – Six of seven emirates have been deleted and redirected.
  18. United States – Ten of the 50 states and four of the five territories have been deleted and redirected.
Five more U.S. states are being considered for deletion.

Again, states and regions outside of Europe have been disproportionately deleted.

 Buaidh  talk contribs 20:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Reply. To add his spamming, canvassing, and other forms of disruption, Buiadh has now WP:BLUDGEONed the discusion with another verbose post which is not really about this portal, and which is based on an unfounded assumption of bad faith. This WP:ABF is standard practice for Buaidh, and it's unacceptable.
Here's the ABF statement: These regional portals have been deleted a few at a time in order to keep a low profile and not alarm users. That is untrue: they have been deleted nearly all one-at-a-time because when portalistas repeatedly object to group nominations, and demand that they be scrutinised individually.
Every one of those MFD nominations is a public process. The MFDs were all open to anyone to to examine, and to comment. And now that they are closed, they are open to anyone to read. If Buaidh had taken the time to read the discussions which led to deletion of those portals, he would see why they were deleted: overwhelmingly because of abandonment and/or low readership.
The problem her is that no matter how many time sit is explained to him, Buaidh simply refuses to accept two simple truths:
  1. The portal guidelines WP:POG set standards for portals, including that they must cover broad subject areas, they must attract a high number of readers and maintainers , they be maintained, they must have minimum number of articles
  2. There is nothing in the guidelines about maintaining any set of geographic portals. That is entirely a personal notion of Buaidh's. If he want;s it to be more than his own personal whim, WP:RFC is thataway.
Buaidh also hasn't done his research properly. Swathes of portals on European cities have been deleted, including Portal:Munich, Portal:Palermo, Portal:City of Bradford, Portal:Stamford, Portal:Cardiff, Portal:Dublin, Portal:Stockholm, Portal:Budapest, Portal:Bucharest, Portal:Barcelona, Portal:Milan, Portal:Prague, Portal:Stockholm, Portal:Turin, Portal:Rome, Portal:Brighton, Portal:Bristol, Portal:Dresden, Portal:Kingston upon Hull. Lots of portals on English counties and regions have been deleted: Portal:East Midlands England, Portal:Merseyside, Portal:Norfolk, Portal:Suffolk.
But hey, Buaidh never lets facts, policies, guidelines or anything else stand in the way of one of his rampages about his hobbyhorses. So why should we expect anything different here?
Wikipedia's problem of systematic bias is well-documented. Editors write about what's most familiar, and since our editors are predominantly North American, with Europeans second, coverage reflects that bias. Portals have broadly followed a similar pattern: most of the worst portals have been outside of Europe/North America/Australasia and the OECD countries.
That inevitably means that when portals are being culled because they don't meet quality standards, portals outside the OECD countries will figure disproportionately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:WyomingEdit

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

Delete this Abandoned micro-portal. Only 4 selected articles and 1 selected biog. No new content added since June 2008‎. 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 in practice, this portal has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and it also has almost no readers: in Jan–Feb 2019, it got only 11 pageviews per day, compared with 3713 views per day for the head article Wyoming. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles
North Dakota 8 1869 Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. 233.63 0.43% 12
New Hampshire 8 2394 No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. 299.25 0.33% 4
South Dakota 8 1726 No maintenance since 2010. 215.75 0.46% 6
Montana 9 3786 Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. 420.67 0.24% 12
Idaho 9 2377 Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. 264.11 0.38% 4
Maine 10 2999 299.90 0.33%
West Virginia 10 2644 Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. 264.40 0.38%
Vermont 10 2081 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. 208.10 0.48% 8
Nebraska 10 2929 Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. 292.90 0.34% 2
Wyoming 11 3713 Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. 337.55 0.30% 5
Iowa 11 2516 No maintenance since 2011. 228.73 0.44% 15
South Carolina 12 2409 Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. 200.75 0.50% 4
Delaware 12 2483 Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. 206.92 0.48%
Rhode Island 12 2760 Last article update 2012. 230.00 0.43% 24
Wisconsin 13 3132 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.92 0.42%
Oklahoma 13 2708 Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. 208.31 0.48% 63
Nevada 14 2600 185.71 0.54%
Indiana 14 2787 Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. 199.07 0.50%
Kentucky 14 2927 No maintenance since 2010. 209.07 0.48%
Kansas 14 2813 Originator inactive since 2014. 200.93 0.50%
Mississippi 14 2737 Originator inactive since 2012. 195.50 0.51%
Minnesota 15 3785 Originator inactive since 2018. 252.33 0.40%
Maryland 15 3315 Originator inactive since 2016. 221.00 0.45%
Connecticut 16 3109 Being reworked by MJL. 194.31 0.51%
Michigan 16 3912 Originator inactive since 2013 244.50 0.41%
Louisiana 16 3186 Originator inactive since 2007. 199.13 0.50%
New Mexico 16 3332 Originator inactive since 2013. 208.25 0.48%
North Carolina 16 3747 Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. 234.19 0.43% 1
Utah 16 2857 Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. 178.56 0.56% 46
Missouri 17 3424 Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. 201.41 0.50% 41
Georgia (state) 17 4088 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.47 0.42%
Washington 17 3881 After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) 228.29 0.44%
Alaska 18 6775 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. 376.39 0.27% 28
Tennessee 18 2972 Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. 165.11 0.61% 11

A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.

A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.

This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: This portal contains basic information about the state but needs updating and improvement. It would be far better to mark this portal as needing updating and improvement rather than simply deleting it. It is far easier to rebuild a portal than to create a portal from scratch. For the status of regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
No. It is easier to build a new portal from scratch than to try to improve an existing portal if the existing portal has a failed architecture that is an honorable experiment that did not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to write of updating and improvement, but the reality is that this is just another of the many hundred of portals which languished for a decade without being improve or updated. It gets too few readers to attract the efforts of editors, so if it is kept it will simply continue to rot.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Buaidh's comment is just more of the magical thinking which a decade ago saw editors create hundreds of portals on a high-maintenance model ... but a decade later we can see the evidence that there simply aren't enough editors willing and able to maintain this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If an editor wants to create a new geographic portal when a previous one has been deleted, they do not need to start from scratch. Requests for Undeletion is to the left and Deletion Review is to the right. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Also, it's easier to update an existing portal compared to creating a new one from scratch. Sincerely, North America1000 12:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No. It is easier to build a new portal from scratch than to try to improve an existing portal if the existing portal has a failed architecture that is an honorable experiment that did not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's personal view of the guidelines is not supported by the long-standing text of the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Per the evidence above this one has not attracted either readers or maintainers.
XFD decisions should be made on the basis of actual guidelines, not on the basis of one editor's desire to apply the Humpty Dumpty principle that ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." @Northamerica1000 is an admin, and should know better than to try reducing this discussion to Alice in Wonderland, so I hope that the closing admin will discount this flight of fancy.
In other discussions, NA1K has offered to to do a rapid update of the portal. I note that there is no such offer here, and instead NA1K proposes tagging the portal to ask someone else to do the update.
The that a solution lies in tagging a portal with {{update}} is risible, and it is demonstrably made in bad faith. As NA1K well knows, very few editors work on portals: they are complex to edit, and have low readership, so editors rightly choose to put their energies elsewhere. That is why the majority of portals which existed a year ago had rotted for years or even for a decade: there are not enough willing maintainers to sustain such a wide number of portals.
The idea that any portal will magically attract maintainers might have made sense a decade ago in the era when the editor base was rapidly growing ... but n 2019, with editor numbers much much lower, it's not just a flight of fancy or magical thinking: it's a straightforward denial of reality.
What this portal needs, like other abandoned portals, is not just two hours of rapid update to raise it just above a deletion threshold. what it needs is:
  1. updating
  2. a complete overhaul to avoid replicating the functionality provided by the new wiki technologies (see below)
  3. ongoing maintenance
@Northamerica1000 is bringing here the approach used in their days with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, which was to preserve some stub on a barely notable topic by adding a few sourced factoids which brought it just over the WP:Notability threshold. That approach in article space just left us with perma-stubs, and when applied to portals it just preserves abandoned portals to rot again.
NA1K repeatedly says of abandoned portals that "there is only so much one person can do", and I agree entirely. One person may be able to rush around like a firefighter on amphetamines and push a series of portals over the threshold, but that one person cannot maintain the dozens of portals which have no other maintainer.
NA1K's approach is to preserve portals at any cost, regardless of quality and regardless of whether they are maintained. They objected angrily to populating Category:All portals because it was "being used by deletionists". They propose the propose deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals, because they prefer not to identify abandon portals.
The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "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". Note that phrase "kept up to date". Not updated once in a drive-by-session, but regularly maintained. NA1K is not even offering to do that.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game, and NA1K doesn't even suggest any way in which they intend to avoid duplicating the new built-in features.
After a decade of widespread abandonment of portals, hundreds of recent MFDs show that consensus has turned against indefinitely keeping this sort of abandoned junk in the hope that every few years it may get the sort of sporadic update which NA1K promises. It is time for NA1K to stop defending the junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Like Portal:Vermont, an abandoned out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox that adds little to a reader. Again, an abandoned portal is not the same as an abandoned article. The abandoned article has passed the criteria for existence, and if well written, can still be useful to a reader. However, the abandoned portal has lost the reason for its existence, and only presents the reader with a perception of Wikipedia that it is a dying platform. While the main Wyoming article may not be tagged for issues, having scanned down through it, I can see there are long passages without any citations or references – how would a reader trust our portal when the main article is suspect? A decade of effective abandonment (as shown by edits), and effective rejection by readers (as shown by views), is sufficient proof that this does not work as a portal. Again, there is no need for Wikipedia to score "own goals against itself. Britishfinance (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:VermontEdit

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

This is another unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles Notes
North Dakota 8 1869 Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. 233.63 0.43% 12 Deleted.
New Hampshire 8 2394 No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. 299.25 0.33% 4 Deleted.
South Dakota 8 1726 No maintenance since 2010. 215.75 0.46% 6
Montana 9 3786 Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. 420.67 0.24% 12
Idaho 9 2377 Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. 264.11 0.38% 4 Deleted.
Maine 10 2999 299.90 0.33% Deleted.
West Virginia 10 2644 Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. 264.40 0.38%
Vermont 10 2081 208.10 0.48%
Nebraska 10 2929 Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. 292.90 0.34% 2
Wyoming 11 3713 Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 337.55 0.30%
Iowa 11 2516 No maintenance since 2011. 228.73 0.44% 15
South Carolina 12 2409 Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. 200.75 0.50% 4
Delaware 12 2483 Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. 206.92 0.48% Deleted.
Rhode Island 12 2760 230.00 0.43%

A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.

A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.

This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Subpar selected article. News section hopelessly out of date. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another abandoned portal. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Vermont shows a small set of articles, most of which have not been touched for years. No new selected articles or selected biogs have been added since 2008.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A theoretical argument could be made that Vermont is a broad topic. I disagree with that theoretical argument (sub-national entities rarely seem to work as portals), 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: This portal contains basic information about the state but needs updating and improvement. It would be far better to mark this portal as needing updating and improvement rather than simply deleting it. It is far easier to rebuild a portal than to create a portal from scratch. For the status of regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 14:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to write of updating and improvement, but the reality is that this is just another of the many hundred of portals which languished for a decade without being improve or updated. It gets too few readers to attract the efforts of editors, so if it is kept it will simply continue to rot.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Buaidh's comment is just more of the magical thinking which a decade ago saw editors create hundreds of portals on a high-maintenance model ... but a decade later we can see the evidence that there simply aren't enough editors willing and able to maintain this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
If an editor wants to create a new geographic portal when a previous one has been deleted, they do not need to start from scratch. Requests for Undeletion is to the left and Deletion Review is to the right. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template, in hopes to attract updates and potential maintainers. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. It's much easier to update an existing portal compared to starting a new one from scratch. Cheers, North America1000 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
No. If the architecture of a portal is an honorable experiment that has failed, subpages that are partial copies of pages, it is easier to create a new portal from scratch than to try to modify a failed architecture. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's personal view of the guidelines is not supported by the long-standing text of the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Per the evidence above this one has not attracted either readers or maintainers.
XFD decisions should be made on the basis of actual guidelines, not on the basis of one editor's desire to apply the Humpty Dumpty principle that ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." @Northamerica1000 is an admin, and should know better than to try reducing this discussion to Alice in Wonderland, so I hope that the closing admin will discount this flight of fancy.
In other discussions, NA1K has offered to to do a rapid update of the portal. I note that there is no such offer here, and instead NA1K proposes tagging the portal to ask someone else to do the update.
The that a solution lies in tagging a portal with {{update}} is risible, and it is demonstrably made in bad faith. As NA1K well knows, very few editors work on portals: they are complex to edit, and have low readership, so editors rightly choose to put their energies elsewhere. That is why the majority of portals which existed a year ago had rotted for years or even for a decade: there are not enough willing maintainers to sustain such a wide number of portals.
The idea that any portal will magically attract maintainers might have made sense a decade ago in the era when the editor base was rapidly growing ... but n 2019, with editor numbers much much lower, it's not just a flight of fancy or magical thinking: it's a straightforward denial of reality.
What this portal needs, like other abandoned portals, is not just two hours of rapid update to raise it just above a deletion threshold. what it needs is:
  1. updating
  2. a complete overhaul to avoid replicating the functionality provided by the new wiki technologies (see below)
  3. ongoing maintenance
@Northamerica1000 is bringing here the approach used in their days with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, which was to preserve some stub on a barely notable topic by adding a few sourced factoids which brought it just over the WP:Notability threshold. That approach in article space just left us with perma-stubs, and when applied to portals it just preserves abandoned portals to rot again.
NA1K repeatedly says of abandoned portals that "there is only so much one person can do", and I agree entirely. One person may be able to rush around like a firefighter on amphetamines and push a series of portals over the threshold, but that one person cannot maintain the dozens of portals which have no other maintainer.
NA1K's approach is to preserve portals at any cost, regardless of quality and regardless of whether they are maintained. They objected angrily to populating Category:All portals because it was "being used by deletionists". They propose the propose deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals, because they prefer not to identify abandon portals.
The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "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". Note that phrase "kept up to date". Not updated once in a drive-by-session, but regularly maintained. NA1K is not even offering to do that.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game, and NA1K doesn't even suggest any way in which they intend to avoid duplicating the new built-in features.
After a decade of widespread abandonment of portals, hundreds of recent MFDs show that consensus has turned against indefinitely keeping this sort of abandoned junk in the hope that every few years it may get the sort of sporadic update which NA1K promises. It is time for NA1K to stop defending the junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Mark Schierbecker has said that some portals have failed to mature. So has this one. I will note that Vermont's best-known agricultural product is cheddar cheese, which takes three to six months to mature by aging, and does not improve thereafter, and this portal has failed to mature for eleven years. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete An abandoned out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox that adds little to a reader. An abandoned portal is not the same as an abandoned article. The abandoned article has passed the criteria for existence, and if well written, can still be useful to a reader. However, the abandoned portal has lost the reason for its existence, and only presents the reader with a perception of Wikipedia that it is a dying platform. A decade of effective abandonment (as shown by edits), and effective rejection by readers (as shown by views), is sufficient proof that this does not work as a portal. There is no need for Wikipedia to score "own goals against itself (god, i can see we don't even have the editing resources to fix the tags on the own goal article). Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this portal needs to be updated, not deleted, and although it presently does not show the most up-to-date content that does not merit deletion. I will spend some time updating it later today, although considering that a lack of readership seems to be one of the reasons to delete it, that is something I cannot fix. Vermont isn't the most popular (or populous) of states. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Update: I've updated the main bit, the selected articles, selected biographies (and added one of those), replaced all of the old DYK's with newer (and, imo, more interesting) ones, and have updated a few of the images (and plan to update the rest later). I would hope this warrants keeping this Portal; I'm happy to maintain it and continue to do so. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Considering many of the comments above are issues regarding no one maintaining the portal, and that I updated a lot of it last night and intend to continually maintain it, I believe those arguments for deletion no longer apply. Vermont (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @User:Vermont, 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 portal has had absolutely abysmal page views:in Jan-Feb 2019, it had an average of only ten per day. So where's the evidence that these abysmal reader counts will magically bloom from trivia to large numbers? (And no, don't produce page views for while the portal is at MFD and the data consists of MFD particpants viewing the page).
Also, I presume that you are not a WP:ROLEACCOUNT. So you are one maintainer. Where are all the other maintainers required by POG?
A far as I can see, you have done some update and polishing, but the two fundamental policy issue remain unresolved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a portal about a U.S. State; there are likely to be people interested in editing it. However, the fact that only one presently is interested is not a valid reason to delete it. Further, I do not see how page views should be used to judge the validity of a page's existence. The fact that few readers visit the page is not a good reason to delete it permanently. Do we delete other under-used resources? Or, do we keep it in the event of people wanting to use it? There is no burden by permitting those 10 people per day to view and utilize it and for myself to continue to update it. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's also already a broad subject: the entire state of Vermont. In that respect, it seems to me to qualify that portion of policy, and in regard to page views, I am not arguing or trying to prove it will magically increase drastically, I am trying to prove, however, that keeping it is a net positive in allowing readers of articles about Vermont to find more similar content through portals, even if few people currently utilize it. I will also note that I am not a role account, if there was any confusion. On the subject of maintainers, your earlier comments in favor of deletion seemed to imply that you would be okay with keeping it were there an active maintainer, as it would no longer be "abandoned junk". Has this changed to multiple active maintainers? WP:POG does not specify that there must be multiple active maintainers, only that it should be about a broad subject area likely to attract people, which this meets. It hasn't attracted too many people, unfortunately, although that is an issue present in a lot of portal-space and not specifically here. Vermont (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

June 28, 2019Edit

Portal:IowaEdit

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

This is an unmaintained and little-viewed portal on a state of the United States. This portal has 10 articles and 5 biographies, but none more recent than 2011. In The News Items are from 2011 and 2012, including the re-election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. The Governor of Iowa is correctly identified, but that is because the portal is picking that information up from the infobox for the lead article Iowa.

The following is a listing of the least-viewed state portals:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles
North Dakota 8 1869 Originator inactive since 2011. Not mained since 2007. 233.63 0.43% 12
New Hampshire 8 2394 No maintenance since 2008. Two articles. Two biographies. 299.25 0.33% 4
South Dakota 8 1726 No maintenance since 2010. 215.75 0.46% 6
Montana 9 3786 Originator inactive since 2010. Last maintenance in 2008. 420.67 0.24% 12
Idaho 9 2377 Originator inactive since 2011. Two biographies. Two articles. Last maintained in 2008. 264.11 0.38% 4
Maine 10 2999 299.90 0.33%
West Virginia 10 2644 Originator inactive since 2011. No maintenance since 2011. 264.40 0.38%
Vermont 10 2081 5 articles and 3 bios, last updated in 2008. Last tweaked in 2016. 208.10 0.48% 8
Nebraska 10 2929 Originator inactive since 2012. No maintenance since 2010. 292.90 0.34% 2
Wyoming 11 3713 Editor edits sporadically. News is obsolete. 4 articles and 1 bio, last updated in 2008. 337.55 0.30% 5
Iowa 11 2516 No maintenance since 2011. 228.73 0.44% 15
South Carolina 12 2409 Originator inactive since 2013. Last maintenance 2009. 200.75 0.50% 4
Delaware 12 2483 Originator banned. Selected pages same as in 2007. 206.92 0.48%
Rhode Island 12 2760 Last article update 2012. 230.00 0.43% 24
Wisconsin 13 3132 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.92 0.42%
Oklahoma 13 2708 Originator inactive since 2007. Has had some maintenance since then. 208.31 0.48% 63
Nevada 14 2600 185.71 0.54%
Indiana 14 2787 Originator inactive since 2010. No maintenance since 2010, except news is 2016. 199.07 0.50%
Kentucky 14 2927 No maintenance since 2010. 209.07 0.48%
Kansas 14 2813 Originator inactive since 2014. 200.93 0.50%
Mississippi 14 2737 Originator inactive since 2012. 195.50 0.51%
Minnesota 15 3785 Originator inactive since 2018. 252.33 0.40%
Maryland 15 3315 Originator inactive since 2016. 221.00 0.45%
Connecticut 16 3109 Being reworked by MJL. 194.31 0.51%
Michigan 16 3912 Originator inactive since 2013 244.50 0.41%
Louisiana 16 3186 Originator inactive since 2007. 199.13 0.50%
New Mexico 16 3332 Originator inactive since 2013. 208.25 0.48%
North Carolina 16 3747 Originator last edited in 2011. One featured article at a time without other articles. 234.19 0.43% 1
Utah 16 2857 Originator inactive since 2007. Last maintenance 2009. 178.56 0.56% 46
Missouri 17 3424 Selected biography out of date. Last updates appear to be 2011. 201.41 0.50% 41
Georgia (state) 17 4088 Originator inactive since 2009. 240.47 0.42%
Washington 17 3881 After correction for renaming. (Total of 39 pageviews in two months.) 228.29 0.44%
Alaska 18 6775 Originator edits sporadically. Last maintained in 2012 except for AWB tweaks. 376.39 0.27% 28
Tennessee 18 2972 Originator inactive since 2016. Last maintenance 2011. 165.11 0.61% 11

A complete listing of state portals with metrics can be seen at WP:US State Portal Metrics. Portals that are not maintained are useless, and, if the information that is facing the reader becomes out-of-date, they are worse than useless, because anyone can edit an article, but heritage portals with subpages contain old copies of articles that require special knowledge to edit.

One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.

A state of the United States may be considered a priori to be a broad subject area, but this portal has been shown a posteriori not to be attracting readers or a portal maintainer. A portal is a miniature Main Page and requires a substantial investment in volunteer time.

This portal should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating a portal maintained by a volunteer who is willing to invest the time to support a miniature Main Page under the portal guidelines that are in effect at the time, but not involving partial copies to subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yet another abandoned portal.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A theoretical argument could be made that Iowa is a broad topic. I disagree with that theoretical argument (sub-national entities rarely seem to work as portals), 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: This portal contains basic information about the state but needs updating and improvement. It would be far better to mark this portal as needing updating and improvement rather than simply deleting it. It is far easier to rebuild a portal than to create a portal from scratch, unless you want to delete all portals, which is a whole other issue. For the status of regional portals, see User:Buaidh/Geographic portals. Our regional portals are dying a slow death. It would be far more humane to kill them all with a single stroke. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 17:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to write of updating and improvement, but the reality is that this is just another of the many hundred of portals which languished for a decade without being improve or updated. It gets too few readers to attract the efforts of editors, so if it is kept it will simply continue to rot.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Buaidh's comment is just more of the magical thinking which a decade ago saw editors create hundreds of portals on a high-maintenance model ... but a decade later we can see the evidence that there simply aren't enough editors willing and able to maintain this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: no valid reason for deletion -this odd rationale will have every portal gone.....read over WP:RIA "pages that contain unattributed text do not normally need to be deleted. Attribution can be belatedly supplied"...fixit as per Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals take 2. It's very concerning that your deleting portal after portal but have no clue how to fix them or to lazy to tag them manually to inform the community that a portal needs updating.. --Moxy 🍁 09:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, the valid reason is that 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 portal does not meet that criterion.
It is risible to the point of disruptiveness that Moxy continues to cite the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC while showing no sign of actually having read it. ENDPOIRTALS was a proposal to delete all portals in one go, and that proposal was rejected. It was not a proposal to keep every abandoned junk portal, and Moxy's repeated pretence that it means something other than what it said is dishonest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an asinine deletion request, and as stated above it's just plain lazy. If it needs to be updated than mark it accordingly and see if someone does that first. Also, the smaller states are going to generate less interest. Should we start eliminating other pages related to them because they don't generate as much interest? We need more editors to do the work rather than busybodies eliminating what we already have. Farragutful (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine rant, Farragutful. Hope you feel better after that.
But the bottom line is that issues such as this are not decided by rants but by policy and guidelines, and the fact remains that this portals does not 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". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Your main problem is linking a disputed page...so hard to see its weight as it applies here. What do you personally consider a big topic and worthy of keeping or effort to fix ....I take it 15,186 articles is to smal as is 35, 000 as stated in the past.....how big?--Moxy 🍁 22:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, you are either being very childish or have exceedingly low comprehension skills. Or maybe both.
  1. WP:POG is a longstanding guideline, and the fact that someone has tagged it as disputed does not invalidate it. AS you know, the discussion there is strongly in favour of upholding the clauses which you dislike.
  2. As you well know, the breadth of a topic is not defined solely by article count. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... so a portal with a scope of a billion articles fails if it lacks readers and maintainers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:POG is a pariah guideline, it failed to gain consensus support, and masqueraded as a guideline ever since. It has been proven to be hopelessly lax, full of lax, dreamlike statements. It allowed for a free for all mass creation of unsuitable portals. *Not even* meeting WP:POG is a damning indictment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails the objectives of a portal (it doesn’t help anyone with anything). Redundant to the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with the {{Update}} template. Then notify relevant Wikiprojects that the portal would benefit from updating. I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal. Cheers, North America1000 12:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
NA1K's personal view of the guidelines is not supported by the long-standing text of the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Per the evidence above this one has not attracted either readers or maintainers.
XFD decisions should be made on the basis of actual guidelines, not on the basis of one editor's desire to apply the Humpty Dumpty principle that ""When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." @Northamerica1000 is an admin, and should know better than to try reducing this discussion to Alice in Wonderland, so I hope that the closing admin will discount this flight of fancy.
In other discussions, NA1K has offered to to do a rapid update of the portal. I note that there is no such offer here, and instead NA1K proposes tagging the portal to ask someone else to do the update.
The that a solution lies in tagging a portal with {{update}} is risible, and it is demonstrably made in bad faith. As NA1K well knows, very few editors work on portals: they are complex to edit, and have low readership, so editors rightly choose to put their energies elsewhere. That is why the majority of portals which existed a year ago had rotted for years or even for a decade: there are not enough willing maintainers to sustain such a wide number of portals.
The idea that any portal will magically attract maintainers might have made sense a decade ago in the era when the editor base was rapidly growing ... but n 2019, with editor numbers much much lower, it's not just a flight of fancy or magical thinking: it's a straightforward denial of reality.
What this portal needs, like other abandoned portals, is not just two hours of rapid update to raise it just above a deletion threshold. what it needs is:
  1. updating
  2. a complete overhaul to avoid replicating the functionality provided by the new wiki technologies (see below)
  3. ongoing maintenance
@Northamerica1000 is bringing here the approach used in their days with the WP:Article Rescue Squadron, which was to preserve some stub on a barely notable topic by adding a few sourced factoids which brought it just over the WP:Notability threshold. That approach in article space just left us with perma-stubs, and when applied to portals it just preserves abandoned portals to rot again.
NA1K repeatedly says of abandoned portals that "there is only so much one person can do", and I agree entirely. One person may be able to rush around like a firefighter on amphetamines and push a series of portals over the threshold, but that one person cannot maintain the dozens of portals which have no other maintainer.
NA1K's approach is to preserve portals at any cost, regardless of quality and regardless of whether they are maintained. They objected angrily to populating Category:All portals because it was "being used by deletionists". They propose the propose deletion of Category:Abandoned country portals, because they prefer not to identify abandon portals.
The lead of WP:POG has said since 2006 "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". Note that phrase "kept up to date". Not updated once in a drive-by-session, but regularly maintained. NA1K is not even offering to do that.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Wisconsin, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image to start the slideshow
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Those new technologies set a high bar for any portal which actually tries to add value for the reader. But this portals fails the basic requirements even of the guidelines written before the new technologies changed the game, and NA1K doesn't even suggest any way in which they intend to avoid duplicating the new built-in features.
After a decade of widespread abandonment of portals, hundreds of recent MFDs show that consensus has turned against indefinitely keeping this sort of abandoned junk in the hope that every few years it may get the sort of sporadic update which NA1K promises. It is time for NA1K to stop defending the junk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The portal needs updating and editors seem to be willing to work on improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Regional PortalsEdit

Some editors have stated that particular levels of regions should have portals. User:Kusma wrote (in April, in an MFD): "all countries should have portals". User:Northamerica1000 wrote: "I consider U.S. states to meet WP:POG guidelines in terms of being broad enough in topical scope to qualify for a portal." Such statements raise a two-part question, having to do with people, and with policies.

Who Should Do What?Edit

The first part of the question is: Who is expected to do what in order to provide the portal? Should Wikipedia provide and maintain a portal? Should Wikipedia provide a portal without maintaining it? Should Wikipedia provide a portal, contingent on having a portal maintainer and a portal maintenance plan? Should the Internet, of which Wikipedia is a prominent site, provide a portal? If only that, the government of the nation, state, or province can and almost certainly does provide and maintain a portal in the form of its web site, as do lesser regions such as counties, cantons, districts, communes, cities, towns, townships, boroughs, and villages.

If Wikipedia is expected to provide and maintain a portal, how can that obligation be reconciled with Wikipedia is not compulsory? If Wikipedia is only expected to provide an empty portal, what good is that? It appears that the implication is that Wikipedia is expected to provide a portal to a maintainer and to continue to keep the portal facing outward toward the readers whether or not it is being maintained. Portal advocates who think that particular levels of regions "should have" portals should clarify what obligation they are implying and on whom.

Impact on Policies and GuidelinesEdit

The second part of the question is how the idea that countries or states "should have" portals should be reflected in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. At present, the page that is designated as the Portal Guidelines states that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers. Portal advocates have focused on the reference to "broad subject areas" and have disregarded the two-part reference to readers and portal maintainers. At present, the status of the portal guidelines is in dispute. Those who would like to retain existing regional portals, and possibly create more regional portals, may either deal with the existing guidelines or propose to revise them. If they prefer to deal with the existing guidelines, there are two issues. The first is that the status of the guidelines is in doubt, appearing to have been a failed proposal. The second is that the existing document refers to readers and maintainers, who cannot simply be assumed or willed into existence. Since the present (contested) guidelines refer not simply to broad subject areas, but to broad subject areas that will attract readers and portal maintainers, any specific portal can be shown by observation not to be attracting readers or maintainers.

The other option for the advocates of regional portals, or for anyone who wants to provide better guidelines with regard to portals, would be to publish a Request for Comments to implement new portal guidelines, either the old guidelines, or a slightly revised version of the old guidelines, or an entirely new set of guidelines. In that case, advocates of regional portals should be on notice that the new guidelines either should explicitly identify certain subjects that are considered portal-worthy even without maintenance, or it can be understood that regional portals, like other subject areas, are only considered to be broad subject areas if they demonstrate that they attract readers and maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Papua New GuineaEdit

Portal:Papua New Guinea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an unmaintained and abandoned portal on a country. The portal was created in 2006, but has not been maintained, and has four articles, none more recent than 2007. The news that faces the reader is dated 2011, about a constitutional crisis that was resolved later in 2011.

The portal has 14 average daily pageviews between 1 Jan 2019 and 28 Feb 2019. The head article Papua New Guinea has 4056 daily pageviews based on the same interval.

One common method for the design of portals, in use at least since 2005, has involved sometimes large numbers of subpages of the portal, one for each selected article and picture, and sometimes for news items and Do You Know (DYK) items. Often the subpages for selected articles consist of a copy of the original article, or a copy of the first part of the original article. The subpages for In The News (ITN) and DYK items may also be copies of the lead paragraph or a portion of the article page. This approach to design of portals is sufficiently commonly used that it can be considered standard. However, it is an honorable experiment that has failed, and should be abandoned. In numerous cases, it has been found that portals have displayed outdated and incorrect information to the reader. These discrepancies have been especially common with, but not limited to, political leadership. These discrepancies are a serious problem because they cannot be readily corrected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, meaning that any reasonably computer-literate person can edit an article; but editing the displayed information in a portal requires specialized technical knowledge of how portals are implemented, which is presumably why errors persist, sometimes for years. An editor who has Twinkle installed can tag articles in need of editing if they do not have the time or knowledge to fix them; but tagging via Twinkle is not available for portals. Experience has shown that the use of portal subpages that copy portions of articles results in outdated information being displayed, sometimes for years, because it is difficult to correct. This design technique, partial article copies, has been an honorable experiment over the course of more than a decade, but the experiment should be assessed to have been a failure. It has also been noted that copying portions of articles to portal subpages without attribution is a violation of the CC-BY-SA copyleft and is not permitted. Some other design approach for portals should be used in the future.

This portal should be deleted, without prejudice to a new portal under future portal guidelines that does not rely on partial copies of pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

”Broad Subject Area” CommentEdit

The failure of this portal to attract either readers or maintainers or even portal development illustrates the absurdity of making the a priori statement that a topic is a broad subject area that will support a portal. The country that is the subject of this portal has extraordinary cultural and biological diversity, including 851 languages. But that breadth has not resulted in the development of the portal, let alone its maintenance or use. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:FIXIT--Moxy 🍁 20:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another abandoned-for-a-decade portal.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". A theoretical argument can be made that Papua New Guinea is a broad topic. I agree with that theoretical argument, but the guideline is clear that this is not a theoretical requirement; it is a practical requirement that the portal must be both used and maintained. And here 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Moxy says WP:FIXIT. FIXIT and SOFIXIT are shortcuts for the guideline WP:Be bold. That guideline is primarily about article space, and states that it is primarily about article space. With regard to portal namespace, it primarily directs the editor to the portal guidelines, which, it seems, are a failed proposal. (So the guideline directs me to a non-guideline.) However, "Be bold" or "Fix it" encourage and empower the editor to correct problems for which solutions can be identified, such as copy-editing. It isn't clear what User:Moxy is saying should be fixed with regard to a portal that has two problems, neither of which has an identified solution. The first is the lack of a portal maintainer. The second is the design using partial page copies, which was an honorable experiment that failed. What is Moxy saying that someone should fix? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The time it took you to compose this all could have been fixed...first begin by transclusion some of the 5,000 plus related articles ...then fix the incoming portal links so that the 60 percent of our readers that don't see the portal can now see it. If you need help I can explain more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 03:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Moxy - Rather than suggesting anonymously that I could have done something better, and rather than saying that I need my hand held, why don't you demonstrate how to fix a portal with the old design, which you imply is done by transcluding a few thousand articles and then fixing the portal incoming links? I can identify some portals for you that I may be nominating for deletion, and maybe you can demonstrate how to fix them. Do you want me to identify a few portals to fix to demonstrate how to fix them? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations, Moxy. You got the job!
It would be helpful if you would indicate which portals you have improved in this way, and which you intend to work on ... and of course what plans you have for their ongoing maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
As has been explained many times automation doesn't need maintenance...::::Easy fix can convert as seen here....or even easier like this. The community has been cLear on this fact.... that is the desire to improve existing portals. Time is needed ....we are volunteers that don't work here full-time. Not sure how people can fix hundreds of portals in a month...Tag give time.-Moxy 🍁 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Moxy - If this discussion is about Portal:Papua New Guinea, then we are not talking about hundreds of portals, only one portal, which it appears you said could be fixed in minutes. If this discussion is about portals in general, then I suggest we take it to WT:Portal/Guidelines. If this discussion is about Portal:Papua New Guinea, then improving a page that has been tagged for deletion has always been considered a desirable alternative to deletion that can be done while the XFD is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Moxy wrote: "Tag give time". That raises two questions. First, how much time? Thirteen years? This portal has been waiting for a maintainer for thirteen years. One week? This portal has been tagged for action in one week, and can be improved in that time. Second, how to tag? The Tag feature of Twinkle does not work on portals. Do you have a canned tag that can be applied to portals that is visible and that populates a category? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
You know full well last time I was in the middle of a fix attempt it was reverted.--Moxy 🍁 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Moxy must be referring to some other portal. There is no history of Moxy having edited Portal:Papua New Guinea either to try to fix it or for any other reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
My reading is that User:Moxy is contradicting themself as to the time required to improve portals. They said that in the time required to compose this all (presumably meaning starting with the MFD nomination) this all could have been fixed. They then said that it takes time to fix portals. If I have misread, and there is no contradiction, p lease explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Tag it for 30 days....and don't revert attempta at fixing. --Moxy 🍁 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
How do I tag a portal? Does User:Moxy have a standard portal tag that can be applied manually to a portal and that populates a category? The ability to tag pages with Twinkle isn't implemented for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup in the past we used {{Update}} Time to setp up and do right by the community ---Moxy 🍁 13:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: thsi portal has been categorised for 6 weeks in Category:Abandoned country portals.
You say that it's Time to setep up and do right by the community ... so please show us which abandoned portals you have rescued in the last 6 weeks.
So far as I can see, Moxy is busy denouncing others for not fixing portals, while doing next to nothing himself. See Moxy's mere 50 portalspace edits for the last 2 months: not a single new content subpage added.
It's all very easy to vent indignation about portals being deleted, which Moxy has taken to doing regularly. But all the indignation on earth doesn't alter the very simple fact that WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... so without readers and maintainers, there is no basis in policy or guideline for keeping the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
You have real gusto saying anything after reverting attempts at fixing portals...cant believe you even have the nerve to say anything after cockblocking fix attempts. What we are looking for is editors to follow our rules and community wishing ....You should read up on WP:DONOTFIXIT and stop the useless work and deletions and help!! Placing thing is a cat with no tag is even more useless the fixing redirects for no reason.- Your right 50 edits to help portals...you have many many many many more mostly based on deletion great work...dispite what other have told you 2 over and over...how many more RfC will you guys ignore??? !!-Moxy 🍁 20:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Moxy - I may respond to the substance of your comment in the near future, after noting for now that it is a blatant violation of civility that amounts to a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Your right ..just frustrating to be told by someone to fix it but yet get reverted when doing so...have struck the comments..not much can be done here as its clear whats happening. -- Moxy 🍁 21:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, stop telling lies. Your fixes have not been reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Question User:Moxy - What fixes were reverted by User:BrownHairedGirl or anyone else? I am aware that numerous portals were converted to an automated design and were then restored to the old design. Is that what is being discussed here? If so, I think that the portal platoon may have been conducting an experiment in fixing another older experiment, and their biggest mistake was not trying to automate portals so much as creating thousands of portals recklessly. What fixes were reverted? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentWP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Wikipedia:Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page (as of this post, link). Ultimately, the use of Redundant fork toward Portal namespace content is a slippery slope and overextension of the Content forking guideline page, as well as the intent of the page when it was written; it's about articles. North America1000 10:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I notice that User:Moxy hasn't fixed this portal. However, since part of the problem with the portal is that the design using copies of parts of subpages is an honorable failed experiment, maybe it can't be fixed, only rebuilt from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Have no interest in talking or editing portals anymore. And have pulled the tec request to make portals visable in mobile view. Portals have been killed as seen by univolved user removing the links from articles all over the place. It's to bad this effort was not geared toward the dead book space over a navigational aid used by those with disabilities.--Moxy 🍁 23:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sometimes an advocate of portals says something to the effect that they have no interest in talking about portals any more. Perhaps, if they were more gracious, they could say something to the effect that they like portals, but they accept that not all of the existing portals will be kept and that some of the arguments against some of the portals have some merit. That would be more gracious. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Again, I am hearing complaints about past wrongs that I do not understand. I am not sure that I want to understand what these past wrongs were. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

April 22, 2019Edit

Portal:BBC & Co.Edit

Portal:BBC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Motörhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Linkin Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Sony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Lenovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Slipknot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:SNK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Oracle Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Sega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Nintendo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Portal:Apple Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Withdrawn.
Portal:Microsoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Withdrawn.

{{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. –MJLTalk 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I was notified. I didn't create any of these portals.--Auric talk 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
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. –MJLTalk 01:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all as useless crap that no-one sees. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not a lieigimate reason for deletion.Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Comment I agree with both comments. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
@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. –MJLTalk 00:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. –MJLTalk 02:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
Those can be deleted too. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    @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, –MJLTalk 21:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • Keep Portal:BBC – Agreed. Rillington (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    To sum things up, the main contention is whether to (a) delete all or (b) weak delete all but keep Portal:BBC. –MJLTalk 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, now it is a officially a WP:TRAINWRECK. –MJLTalk 00:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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

  Good articles

  Former good articles

  Good article nominees

  Did you know? articles