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
  Jun Jul Aug Sep TOTAL
CfD 1 3 12 25 41
TfD 0 0 0 2 2
MfD 0 0 0 15 15
FfD 0 0 0 5 5
AfD 0 0 0 4 4

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.

September 23, 2019Edit

Portal:FranconiaEdit

Portal:Franconia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned, static mini-portal on Franconia, a historical region in Germany, now divided between three German states. Very low pageviews. Copied from the German.

Created[1] in May 2016 by Bermicourt (talk · contribs), who has done a lot of work on German portals and has pioneered the use of the German Wikipedia's "mega-navbox" style of portal. This uses navbox-like lists of articles to provide direct access to lots of them, complete with the built-in previews available to non-logged-in readers on all en.wp pages. It's vastly more usable than the predominant but hideous one-subpage-at-a-time model. Sadly, readers seem no more interested in it than in the subpage portals, so In Jan–Jun 2019 this portal averaged only 5 views day, which is barely above background noise.

This structure doesn't have a farm of content-forked sub-pages, so Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Franconia contains v few content pages, but they have all been abandoned since their creation in 2016, without even drive-by edits. Portal:Franconia/New Articles is particularly notable, because since creation in 2016, it has listed only the same article: Hohenloher Ebene östlich von Wallhausen, which is a redlink because the page has never existed on English Wikipedia. On German Wiki, does exist, having been created in May 2016 ... so there seems to be have been no adaptation to English Wikipedia.

Similarly the lists of featured articles and good articles refer to their status on German Wikipedia, not on en.wp. Thankfully those are explicitly labelled as such, but it's a bit of a useless list to display to readers of en.wp. There are two bluelinked articles on the list of Features articles: Hesselberg (B-class), and Kordigast (stub). Telling the reader that they are feature-class in a different language on another website doesn't help much. If readers were good at reading German, then they'd probably have gone direct to German Wikipedia to read about Germany

This all looks like a page which might be of help to editors, but it's at best unhelpful to readers.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal".This fails on all four counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. Depends how you define it. If the scope us defined as the whole of the history of that area, then it may be big enough ... but that involves framing contemporary topics through a historical region which now crosses a multiple internal borders. That seems a bit POV and also creates a lot of overlap between portals.
  2.  N High readership. No. 5 views per day is very low.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. No. As far as I can see, nobody except Bemicourt has done anything to this portal other than format-tweak the portal's main page, and since 21 May 2016 Bermicourt has done only two edits to the portal: one in July 2016,[2] and one in Dec 2018[3]. The latter edit was a bit naughty, because it updated the portal maintenance status even tho there had been no maintenance for 2½ years.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. There is no WP:WikiProject Franconia, which means that there is no systematic assessment of Franconia articles to feed to the portal. The portal's talkpage is tagged for WP:WikiProject Germany, but its talk page+archives contain only one mention of the portal: Bermicourt's May 2016 announcement of the portal's creation, which got no response.

The experience of 6 months of MFDs scrutinising many hundreds of portals has shown that many countries don't even make viable portals, and sub-national regions even more rarely. Despite en.wp's huge systemic bias towards American topics, even many states of the United States had portals which failed. This isn't even a sub-national region; it's a former sub-national region, now fragmented across several sub-national jurisdictions.

This portal was created in good faith, mimicking the German system of portals. But on en.wp it has failed, because nobody has done anything to build on Bericourt's starting point. There is no active WikiProject to support it, and almost no interest in reading it, and it is rotting. Time to just delete this portal (or move it to project space, to which it seems better suited). Since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks be removed. I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case I see no single alternative portal. And in any case there are only links from articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:PomeraniaEdit

Portal:Pomerania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned, static mini-portal on Pomerania, a historical region on the southern shore of the Baltic Sea, now now split beween Germany and Poland. V low pageviews, v little content. Redundant to the B-class head article Pomerania, and its two excellent navboxes: Template:Pomeranian history and Template:Pomeranian geography.

Created[4] in July 2013 by Horst-schlaemma (talk · contribs), but only as a three-line place-holder: "Let's start with copying the German Portal:Pommern here". That was Horst-schlaemma's last contribution to the portal.

The portal was actually built in July 2017 by Bermicourt (talk · contribs), who has done a lot of work on German portals and has pioneered the "mega-navbox" style of portal. This uses extensive navbox-like lists of articles to provide direct access to lots of them, complete with the built-in previews available to non-logged-in readers on all en.wp pages. It's vastly more usable than the predominant but hideous one-subpage-at-a-time model. Sadly, readers seem no more interested in it than in the subpage portals, so In Jan–Jun 2019 this portal averaged only 6 views day, which is barely above background noise.

This structure doesn't have a farm of content-forked sub-pages, so Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Pomerania contains v few content pages, and they have all been abandoned since 2017:

And that's it. So this portal has been displaying the same content since it was built, even including the set of only two selected article content-forked into Portal:Pomerania/Selected Articles.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal".This fails on all four counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. Depends how you define it. If the scope us defined as the whole of the history of that area, then it may be big enough ... but that involves framing contemporary topics through a historical region, which now crosses a border. That isn't just perverse; it could be seen as POV-pushing Pan-Germanism or irredentism.
  2.  N High readership. No. views per day is very low.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. No. Wholly, abandoned from 2013 to 2017, then one day of edits on 28 July 2017 the abandoned again apart from trivial formatting edits to the portal's main page
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. There is no WP:WikiProject Pomerania, which means that there is no systematic assessment of Pomerania articles to feed the portal, and no pool of editors to maintain it. The porta's talkpage is tagged for WP:WikiProject Germany, but its talk page+archives contain only one mention of the portal: Bermicourt's 28 July 2017 announcement that the portal had been built, which got no response.

The experience of 6 months of MFDs scrutinising many hundreds of portals has shown that many countries don't even make viable portals, and sub-national regions even more rarely. Despite en.wp's huge systemic bias towards American topics, even many states of the United States had portals which failed. This isn't even a sub-national region; it's a former sub-national region.

This portal was created in good faith, mimicking the German system of portals. But on en.wp it has failed. There is no active WikiProject to support it, and almost no interest in reading it. Readers would be massively better served by being directed to the B-class head article Pomerania. Time to just delete this portal. Since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks be removed. I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case in this case, there are only 11 links from articles, and replacing a link to Portal:Pomerania with either or both of Portal:Poland/Portal:Germany risks POV issues, so I propose to just delete the links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Airbus AlbatrossONEEdit

Draft:Airbus AlbatrossONE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Copyright Mikedabin (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment User:Mikedabin - If the text is copyright, can you tag this as G12? If you want the page deleted, can you tag this as G7? I don't know enough about the copyright status of the text to be able to comment. I can see that two images were deleted due to copyright violation, but that does not mean that the text is copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:NintendoEdit

Portal:Nintendo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Portal:Nintendo is a well-viewed unmaintained single-vendor portal. In the first half of 2019, the portal had 61 average daily pageviews, as contrasted with 4419 for the article. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Nintendo shows 20 articles, 16 pictures, and other pages. The articles were created in 2007, and a few in 2009, and some are unchanged, and some have been tweaked in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2016, including two that have had links corrected in 2019. There is no designated maintainer. There are three problems with this portal. First, it is not being updated, and its maintenance is inconsistent, which does not comply with the portal guidelines. Second, 20 articles is, based on the usual version of the portal guidelines, a bare minimum, with no effort to increase the coverage since 2009. Those are issues with the portal guidelines, which portal advocates have challenged. If the portal guidelines are not guidelines, we should use common sense, except that it is obvious that portal advocates do not have that quality. The third problem is that this single-company portal is non-neutral and reads like a catalog of Nintendo products. The neutral point of view requirement predates the portal guidelines, is non-negotiable, and is the second pillar of Wikipedia. This portal hasn't changed much in ten years and isn't about to become neutral or to be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save some one-off maintenance by passing editors. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a low 61 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Nintendo had 4,419 views per day in the same period).
POG also requires that portals be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Nintendo is just a redirect to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo taskforce, which has some activity, but the portal was last mentioned on the talk page in Aug. 2009 about updating the sorely out-of-date portal, but got no response. This shows a clear lack of interest in this portal. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Nintendo is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Video games), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Second, 20 articles is, based on the usual version of the portal guidelines, a bare minimum, with no effort to increase the coverage since 2009. is clearly a faulty argument; there are 20 articles which are selected, but from a total, you are welcome to peruse the subcategories of Category:Nintendo. There are thousands of articles associated with the portal accordingly, and I need not get into the specifics here.
    The third problem is that this single-company portal is non-neutral and reads like a catalog of Nintendo products. is also ludicrous if not fallacious on its face; one would expect a portal about Nintendo to be about Nintendo products, history, you name it. Saying this is a failure of NPOV seems to indicate misunderstanding of what NPOV actually means, and I'd invite you to try that line of logic for deleting the many video games we document today (good luck).
    That said, I'm practical, and tend to think that portals in their entirety should be removed, not least because of the many arguments on their general use (i.e. that they aren't used and that we have been in a post-portal world since before Wikipedia existed). A portal with 1.5% page views of its corresponding main topic article is not good enough for continued maintenance. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Izno that there could be plenty of articles used- Cat:Nintendo articles by quality lists 37 FAs, 9 FLs, and 173 GAs. The fact remains that no one is maintaining this portal or adding these articles, and the portal itself is not doing anything with presentation or information to justify a separate Portal. --PresN 16:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 22, 2019Edit

Draft:Ricardo CostaEdit

Draft:Ricardo Costa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Draft:Drifts (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Paroles (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Mists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Self-promotional advertising by an editor with a direct conflict of interest, who has been previously blocked under other usernames but keeps returning to evade the block. These were all submitted to the AFC queue but then copy-pasted directly into mainspace without reviewer approval, and have been deleted at AFD due to their heavy advertorialism, so there's no value in holding onto the draft versions. As I've pointed out more than once, any attempt to get him and his work back into Wikipedia will need to be written in an encyclopedic tone rather than as advertising essays, and referenced to reliable sources rather than his own self-published content about himself, by somebody without a direct conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete All as conflict of interest drafts, not worth salvaging into a neutral version. Salt all titles as Extended-Confirmed Protected in both draft space and article space so that neutral editors can originate new versions if the subjects are notable. Block the author again if they resume the personal attacks when the current block expires. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Bearcat, would you please link the mentioned AfD and the deleted mainspace titles, or their logs? Are there any WP:LTA or WP:SPI pages to reference?
Is the block you refer to the one of Lusouser (talk · contribs) by User:Kudpung three days ago? That was a behavioural block of only three days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
He has prior editblocks under other usernames per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tertulius; I literally didn't mention the current short-term editblock at all, as it has very little to do with the actual problem. (It speaks to his behaviour, obviously, but not to the actual quality of the articles in question.) The articles were originally deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker), and then recreated and redeleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Costa (filmmaker) (2nd nomination). Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and the clear consensus in the AfDs. I am not sure the normal criteria for SALTing is met, and prefer SALTing requests to go to WP:RfPP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 21, 2019Edit

Portal:NanotechnologyEdit

Portal:Nanotechnology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) – Joe (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Twenty-six selected articles and 52 selected bios created in early 2012. I would estimate the average time since last update for these at about six years.

Errors

Heinrich Rohrer died in May 2013; Harry Kroto in April 2016, Mildred Dresselhaus in February 2017 and Calvin Quate in July 2019. Mihail Roco is not a chair on the National Science and Technology Council NSET subcommittee. Konstantin Novoselov teaches at the National University of Singapore not the University of Manchester. Lila Kari has taught at the University of Waterloo since 2017. Congressman Mike Honda lost re-election in 2016. Eric Betzig began teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2017. Angela Belcher was promoted to the head of the Department of Biological Engineering at MIT this year. Paul Alivisatos was promoted to the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost University of California, Berkeley in 2017. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This junk portal has been abandoned for about six years, save for copious and meaningless re-ordering of sub-pages, and is riddled with many serious errors. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This abandoned portal has had about six years of no maintainers and it had a very low 20 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Nanotechnology had 1881 views per day in the same period). This is a sharp long-term decline from 41 views per day from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as about six years of hard evidence shows Nanotechnology is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis and listing of errors by User:Mark Schierbecker and analysis by User:Newshunter12. This portal, unlike some, has more than enough articles, but this portal illustrates that more articles means more of a need for maintenance of the forked subpages and more opportunities for the information in the subpages to become obsolete. Low and declining readership, but maybe declining readership is usual for portals. No maintenance in six years, and we see why maintenance is necessary. The use of content-forked subpages is a rat hole. There is no short-term reason to expect that a re-creation of this portal will address the problems. Any proposed re-creation of this portal using a more modern design, and taking into account the failures of many portals, and including a maintenance plan (since lack of maintenance is a problem with most portals), can go to Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after discussion at deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note the sub-pages have not yet been restored, and it's not possible to examine the portal until that's done. So I have left a note for the DRV closer @Joe Roe, who is looking into ways of restoring the baroque forest of sub-pages without spending days doing them one-by-one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    •   Done – Joe (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Mark Schierbecker and analysis by User:Newshunter12. Low readership + no active maintainer = clear fail of 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".
The large number of biographies includes a large number of BLPs, and the errors of fact in BLPs are bad news.
The DRV was opened by Antony-22, who is listed as the portal's maintainer, and claimed that as such they should have been individually notified on their talk page to trigger an email about the MFD. I don't find it credible that a maintainer should need an email, and Antony-22's portal-space contribs show only that their last 3 edits to the portal were made on 1/ 29 March 2019, 2/ 23 June 2018, 3/ 12 July 2016. One tweak per year is not significant maintenance, and the consequences of the neglect were set out above by the nominator.
So the result is that while POG requires multiple maintainers, this portal has really had only one inactive, nominal maintainer. And clearly that is nowhere near enough, as shown by the rot noted above. If Antony-22's interests have moved on, then per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY that's fine, a choice they are entitled to make without reproach. But given that inactivity, Antony-22 should really have removed themself as maintainer when they moved on.
This is an example of a perennial problem with portals: they are fun to build, but very laborious and tedious to maintain. So they have rotted at industrial scale, which is why MFD has been so busy these past six months.
Antony-22 indicated at DRV that they would now do some fixes if the portal is restored. But portals don't just need quick fixes when deletion is imminent; they need ongoing maintenance, and multiple maintainers to do it. So a flurry of updating now won't in any way sway my mind, because it won't solve the underlying problem.
Note that WP:POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". In this case, there is not and never has been a WP:WikiProject Nanotechnology.
Please note that the failure of this portal is not any sort of personal failure by those involved in building it. It's a structural failing stemming from Wikipedia's daft decision to create portals in 2005, just as the rest of the web was abandoning them as redundant. Wikipedia itself developed technologies to marginalise their utility on Wikipedia: categories, navboxes, and an increasingly effective search function. So portals were built as they became redundant, guaranteeing low readership for all but the broadest topics, which in turn strangled the supply of maintainers: few editors know about a page that nobody views, and very few of those who do know of it want to maintain an almost-unused page. To compound the problems, portal enthusiasts concentrated on a broken magazine model of portal, which manages the extraordinary feat of being exceptionally unhelpful to readers (purge the page to get a new selection from a list you can't even see on the face of the main portal page? Mad! Belongs in the stone age of usability) and a baroque nightmare to maintain or even to effectively watchlist. (Editors cannot even watchlist the portal in one click; they have to individually watchlist all the sub-pages listed in Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Nanotechnology. Mad). A design and structure which requires massive editor effort even as the editor-to-pages-ratio continues to decline.
A very few portals somehow have enough dedicated editors to avoid rotting despite the structural flaws. This isn't one of them, so delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Your criticisms are mostly directed at the system of portals in general, as you imply yourself, "the failure of this portal is not any sort of personal failure by those involved in building it. It's a structural failing stemming from Wikipedia's daft decision to create portals in 2005...". We had an RfC last year where removing the system of portals was defeated. I know there's been controversy over the creation and deletion of a large number of automated portals, but this portal was never involved in that. I also realize that the requirements for portals have been in flux, but portals have never been expected to have a constant stream of new content like the Main Page does; they're intended to cycle through a cache of content, with the cache being refreshed periodically. What level of maintenance would you regard as acceptable? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Antony-22: if you want to have a discussion, then please try to read the whole of the comment you are replying to. Snipping out parts which can be coerced into suiting your purpose by stripping them of their context is not a civil form of discourse.
Your reply entirely omits my concluding sentence: A very few portals somehow have enough dedicated editors to avoid rotting despite the structural flaws. This isn't one of them, so delete it.. That omission makes your whole comment a straw man. I hope this was unintentional, because straw-man-making is hostile mischief.
You also entirely miss the point that a portal does not cycle through a cache of content. It cycles through a cache of content forks, which have been allowed to rot while you focused your energies on breaking attribution by engaging in a make-work series of copy-paste moves.
It's not for me to unilaterally pronounce a precise maintenance cycle. My point is that your practice of zero actual maintenance while letting content rot is completely useless. It has meant that the portal has been spewing out incorrect info on living people.
As to WP:ENDPORTALS, I'm sorry to see you joining the small crew of portal fans who systematically misrepresent it. ENDPORTALS was a binary proposal, asking whether to immediately delete all portals. It closed as a consensus not to immediately delete all portals. That is not a consensus to keep all or even most portals, let alone abandoned junk which for years has just been a playground for copypaste moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, or archive or reuse elsewhere. Fails the ostensible purpose of portals to serve navigation needs. Redundant to the parent article. Redundant to a top level portal, Portal:Technology. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as maintainer. It is not accurate that the portal has been abandoned since 2012; in fact, that's when I took it over and overhauled the portal's main page. Apparently, the nominator wasn't familiar enough with portals to even know that content updates go on the subpages. The content issues are limited to a few missing death dates and a few employers that need to be updated, which took me all of 20 minutes to update. I'll go through all the articles this week and see if there's anything else that needs to be updated. These are issues that could have been fixed quickly by asking nicely, rather than jumping directly to deletion. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 02:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Antony-22's comment these are issues that could have been fixed quickly by asking nicely, rather than jumping directly to deletion defeats his claim to be a maintainer. It is of course quick and easy to fix such problems once they have been identified, but whole point of being a maintainer rather than a drive-by editor is that a maintainer proactively monitors the portal and actively seeks out such issues, rather than waiting for others to do the scrutiny.
Antony-22's portal-space contribs shows that his 2015/16 edits consist entirely of pointlessly shuffling content from one sub-page to another, cluttering the edit history whilst adding zero value to readers and making it near impossible to figure out when an article was added to the portal. It seems that the aim may have been to order the index page Portal:Nanotechnology/Selected biography alphabetically by surname, but if that was goal then it could been achieved simply by shuffling the order of entries in Portal:Nanotechnology/Selected biography (or alternatively making them a sortable table, orderable by either surname or number) rather than doing a flurry of copy-paste moves. (WP:BEFOREMOVING says "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history"). It's bad enough having a portal built from a forest of content forks without also having the edit history destroyed because a basic guideline was ignored. Antony-22's cut-and-paste moves go back at least to February 2012[5], so by now it seems that edit history of the sub-pages is comprehensively wrecked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I am very aware of how subpages work. This isn't my first rodeo. I did not say the subpages had been abandoned since 2012. I said the average time each subpage had gone without an update was six years, which is not far off. What was your reason for breaking the edit history numerous times with copy-paste moves like this? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I've periodically replaced biographies with new ones. I monitor a handful of nanotechnology-related prizes and if a recent winner has a higher-quality one than an an existing biography on the portal, I switch them out. I believe this is the kind of maintenance that is expected of portals. Portals are not expected to have a constant stream of new content like the Main Page does; they're intended to cycle through a cache of content, with the cache being refreshed periodically. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@Antony-22: It is expected that editors participating in a XFD discuss the issues civilly and in good faith.
Two editors have separately raised with you the problem of your copypaste moves (which are deprecated), and @UnitedStatesian asked you why you did. You have not explained why you have chosen to systematically break the attribution required by Wikipedia's copyright licensing.
Yes, replacing a selected article with something else is fine. But the copypastes are not fine, and you appear to be evading the question of why you broke attribution in this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The text clearly comes from the article linked in big bold letters above it, that it's identified as being a summary of. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 05:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • keep Let's let the maintainer try to see if they can keep it up and revisit in 6 months if it isn't happening. Be a shame to lose what we have due to fear of nothing happening and the maintainer sounds motivated. Of course others could join in too. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of how dedicated one maintainer is, the topic is not broad enough to meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline; as one piece of evidence, there is no Wikipedia:WikiProject Nanotechnology, and so 1) no automated tagging of article talkpages that is almost certainly necessary to keep the portal up-to-date with high quality articles and 2) no way to recruit other maintainers that are necessary to avoid the key-man risk this portal currently has. This subject matter can be more than adequately covered by Portal:Technology. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – per SJ and US. Portal:Technology is where this topic area should be covered. Levivich 04:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears that User:Antony-22 has killed a few rats in a ratty structure, and is waving them to show that they are dead. A portal has information that is outward-facing, facing the reader, and should be correct. The job of a portal maintainer always should have been to keep the information correct, not to be asked nicely to correct the errors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is almost sounding vindictive. It appears to be in decent shape now and we have a promise to keep it going in the future. Why not delete iff there is a problem down the road? I realize there are people that just dislike portals, and that's fair (though not really a reason to delete *this* one). But if the current state is good and we have a promise it will remain so, why not AGF and go from there? Hobit (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, issues are being fixed now. Somewhat specialised portals tend have more coherence than very broad ones, so I don't think it will serve readers to upmerge to Portal:Technology. —Kusma (t·c) 12:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 20, 2019Edit

Portal:MonacoEdit

Portal:Monaco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Portal:Monaco is a small portal for a small country, but its level of viewing is too small. The portal has 4 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, while the head article has 7048 daily pageviews (reflecting its status as a tourist attraction and gambling resort). This is a single-page portal, originated by User:The Transhumanist toward the beginning of the wave of reckless portal creation. At least a very small very rich country is a less absurd topic for a portal than some of the portals created by TTH. This portal has 29 articles referenced in embedded lists, so that it doesn't use subpages and doesn't have subpage rot. But it doesn't have large numbers of readers, either, and doesn't really function as a miniature Main Page. There is no evidence of support at WP:WikiProject Monaco or WP:WikiProject European Microstates. Since this already is a modern-design portal, there is no reason to re-create it with a better design. The design isn't the problem; the lack of readers is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Here we have a good page which few readers visit. The solution is not to delete the good page but to make it more visible, or simply to leave it alone where it benefits 1400 readers a year and harms no one. The lack of pageviews may be because the portal has just 59 incoming wikilinks from articles, mostly from backwaters such as List of mayors of Monaco and Treaty of Tordesillas (1524) and located in the footer of a navbox at the bottom of the page, and is excluded from searches. For comparison, the article Monaco has 11,609 incoming links and is included in searches. Certes (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Certes WP:POG requires portals have large numbers of readers, while this has almost none. 4 views a day is a pure background noise of search bots and accidental clicks, if there even are any accidental clicks. Portals don't have their own content, and at 0.06% of the daily views of the head article, this one clearly adds no value to exploring the topic of Monaco on Wikipedia. It would take nearly five years for this portal to have the total number of views the head article gets in a single day. There is no evidence that adding links has ever increased any portals viewing rate, so please stop trotting out a fake talking point. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: I really wish that portal fans would stop flogging that poor dead horse of "excluded from searches". I thought that it had been laid to rest long ago.
  1. It applies to all portals. It's no reason to make an exception of this one.
  2. If you want to propose that it be changed, then go right ahead and open an RFC. I for one will vigorously oppose it on principle, because a search for articles should return articles. The search should not include categories, template, portals, files, or any other namespace. But go on, open that RFC and see where the consensus lies.
  3. A few second's thought or one minute's research would show that it's a daft idea, because portalspace consists overwhelming of sub-pages, most of which are on their own useless to readers (their value lies in being part of a main portal page). To save you that minute of research, here's a search of portalspace for the word city.
Anyway, if you wanna pursue the idea, then RFC is thataway. This here is MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose re-creation per the nom. This portal is about an exceedingly narrow topic and has incredibly low readership (0.06% of the daily views of the head article), which is a clear fail of 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". Newshunter12 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose re-creation, per the nominator. Low readership + trivial pageviews = clear fail of 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".
POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal" ... but WP:WikiProject Monaco is inactive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Europe), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, lack of readers is not a reason for deletion. Were the four people viewing the page every day made unhappy by the existence of the portal? —Kusma (t·c) 16:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:KeralaEdit

Portal:Kerala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Mini-portal on the Indian state of Kerala. Abandoned since 2008, apart from two sub-page additions in 2015 + one in 2019 and the usual formatting tweaks to the main page. There is a 12-year-old stale "news" page, and a set of eleven-year-old stale DYKs. Few quality articles in its scope; WikiProject is inactive; no maintainers; and only 12 views/day. It has only 11 selected articles, barely over half the POG moinimum of 20. (Yes, I do know that after 6 months of specifying a bare minimum of twenty, POG was reverted to an earlier version which makes even that low number a fuzzy target. But I hope that unlike the reverter, editors will exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and recognise that even 20 articles is a woefully small set to provide a decent sample of any non-trivial topic, and that a mere 11 is a risible waste of time.) Redundant to the head article Kerala and the comprehensive navbox Template:Kerala

This is one of en.wp's oldest portals. It was created [6] in June 2005‎‎ by DuKot (talk · contribs), whose last edit to any part of the portal was in July 2005 (see DuKot's portal-space contribs). This was over a year before WP:POG warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", so the abandonment should not be criticised.

The /News and /DYK sub-pages were created by DuKot. The first ten of the eleven /Selected articles/Archive, plus the first 7 of the 9 Selected pictures/Archive were added in 2006 by Thunderboltz (talk · contribs), whose last contribution to any part of the portal was in 2008 (see Thunderboltz's portal-space contribs).

The only maintenance since then has been by Arunvrparavur (talk · contribs), who in 2015 added /Selected article 11 and /Selected pictures/Selected picture 8. In 2019, they added /Selected pictures/Selected picture 8, and some fake DYKs [7] to Portal:Kerala/DYK.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Kerala shows a small set of sub-pages:

  • 11 selected articles, listed at /Selected articles/Archive. The first ten were created in 2006, since when the only one to have had any non-technical edits is /Selected article 8, which had a minor clarification in 2013. [8] Note that since 2006, the subject of /Selected article 2 has been Kerala, which is pointless duplication since that's the article in the portal's lead.
    /Selected article 11 was added in 2015 by Arunvrparavur, and is wholly unchanged since then.
  • /News/News last had any addition of new content in Dec 2007 [9], and nothing has been removed since then. So there's a list of 16 items dating from 2007, all dated only by month+day (e.g. "May 4"). In October 2012, an IP added a visible note "The events on this page have only month and day. Year is missing! Some one please add the year" [10] ... but seven years later, nobody has either removed the stale news or added the year.
  • /DYK contains 7 items. The fist three were added added in 2019 by Arunvrparavur, appear to be fakes: I have found no trace of them ever being part of WP:DYK. The remaining 4 all date from 2008 or earlier, and I have been able to verify a DYK origin for only two of them (Kumarakom Bird Sanctuary and Kettuvallam). 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 the two genuine eleven-year-old entries lose the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section. And the remaing five fakes are and always have been trivia.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on all four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. No. Category:Kerala articles by quality shows only 1 FA, 11 GAs, and 2 A-class. That set is too small to sustain a portal, let alone ensure a balanced set of topics.
  2.  N High readership. No. The trickle of edits since 2008 is close to abandonment. 12 views per day is very low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. V little maintenance since 2008.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. I have just tagged [11] WP:WikiProject Kerala as inactive, because the last discussion on its talkpage was in 2014. The project shows zero interest in the portal. I searched Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kerala and its archives, and found only one mention: a 2006 notice of portal peer review. Nothing in the 13 years since then.

This portal was created in good faith in the very early, experimental days of portals. But it has been almost abandoned since 2008, with no fixes of the decade-old problems. There is no active WikiProject to support it, and almost no interest in reading it. Readers would be massively better served by being directed to the GA-class head article Kerala. Time to just delete this portal. Since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over decade long abandoned portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Kerala is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Low readership, no maintenance, not enough articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian State PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles Notes Parent Portal
India 145 30677 Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 211.57 0.47% 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Asia
Andhra Pradesh 16 5497 Originated 2008 and promptly abandoned by sporadic editor. No maintenance since 2010. 343.56 0.29% 10 India
West Bengal 14 3531 Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 252.21 0.40% 26 A tangled forest of subpages. India
Maharashtra 13 4684 Originated 2006. Originator last edited 2010. Most articles created in 2016. No maintenance since 2016. 360.31 0.28% 11 India
Uttar Pradesh 13 5157 Originator edits sporadically. Maintenance stopped around 2011. 396.69 0.25% India
Kerala 12 4504 Little maintenance since 2006, no maintenance since 2015. Originated 2005 by an editor who is inactive since 2008. 375.33 0.27% 11 India
Gujarat 12 3471 Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 289.25 0.35% 16 India
Rajasthan 12 3388 Originated 2014; originator last edited 2016. Nominator states little maintenance since 2014. 282.33 0.35% 17 India
Odisha 11 2505 Originated and abandoned in 2009 by a sporadic editor. 227.73 0.44% 9 No substantive maintenance since 2011. India
Delhi 11 4490 Originator inactive since 2012. 408.18 0.24% India
Assam 10 2679 Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 267.90 0.37% 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013. India
Bihar 10 2935 Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 293.50 0.34% 16 India
Haryana 9 2469 Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 274.33 0.36% 12 India
Jharkhand 9 1468 Originator inactive since 2017. 163.11 0.61% 13 India
Himachal Pradesh 9 2219 Originator inactive since 2017. 246.56 0.41% 6 India
KeralaEdit
  • Comment - This is not a complete list of Indian state portals, but no Indian state portal so far has had more than 16 average daily pageviews, and most have been poorly maintained (if maintained at all). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 19, 2019Edit

Portal:LincolnshireEdit

Portal:Lincolnshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Portal:Lincolnshire is one of 23 portals for counties in England. This portal does not have large numbers of readers or of maintainers. It had 8 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 792 for the main article. I have not counted the total number of articles on Lincolnshire. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Lincolnshire shows 4 articles, 6 biographies, 8 Do You Knows (not reviewed), and 4 pictures. All of the 10 articles are from 2010, approximately half have been tweaked. Biography 4 stated that Margaret Thatcher was the only female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which illustrates the hazard of forked subpages. There has been no substantive maintenance since 2010. As has been noted, even portals for first-level administrative subdivisions seldom have the readers and maintenance required by portal guidelines. One can argue over whether counties in England are first-level or second-level, but re-creation does not seem useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:England), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. Too narrow a topic (six months of MfD has shown that sub-national regions hardly if ever are broad enough to sustain a portal), not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of 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". POG also states portals should be associated with a WikiProject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Lincolnshire has been tagged as inactive (the last editor to editor conversation was in February 2015) and the only mention ever of the portal on the talk page was a 2010 comment by it's creator announcing its creation and asking for help, but got no response. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Lincolnshire is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Geographic British PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Percent Notes Parent Portal Baseline Deleted
United Kingdom 126 26054 Originator inactive since 2009. 0.48% Very large set of articles. Europe Jan19-Feb19 FALSE
England 54 10499 Originator inactive since 2007. No maintenance since 2011. 0.51% United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Scotland 43 7555 Originator inactive since 2018. Maintenance in 2019. 0.57% United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
London 37 15016 Greater London = 1797 views 0.25% England Jan19-Feb19 FALSE
Wales 28 6270 Originator edits sporadically. Last substantive maintenance appears to have been 2011; tweaks since. 0.45% United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Northern Ireland 20 5898 Originator blocked in 2007 for sockpuppetry. New maintenance in April 2019. 0.34% United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Cheshire 17 1011 Portal being maintained. 1.68% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Cornwall 14 2238 Originator inactive since 2011. Has design in which content is copied within portal. 0.63% Has design in which page content is embedded in portal. England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Yorkshire 12 1567 Originator came in 2007, did their thing, went in 2007. 0.77% Appears to have been little maintenance since 2013. England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Isle of Man 12 4691 Originator last edited 2012. No apparent maintenance since 2012. 0.26% DYKs are dated April 2013. United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Channel Islands 11 1960 Originator inactive since 2015. Last maintenance appears to have been 2014. 0.56% United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 TRUE
North West England 10 604 Originator edits sporadically, last in 2018. Last maintenance appears to have been 2009. 1.66% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Kent 9 1395 Originator edited sporadically, last in 2018. Articles and biographies taken from Portal:South East England. 0.65% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Bristol 8 2314 Editor still active 0.35% England Jan19-Feb19 TRUE
Lincolnshire 8 792 Originated 2010. Margaret Thatcher referred to as only female Prime Minister. No substantive edits since 2010; approximately half of ten articles have had cosmetic edits. 1.01% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
South East England 7 690 Portal has embedded list including subsections for county portals. Complete set of anniversaries. 1.01% Article views have weird peak on 6/6/19 England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Isle of Wight 6 1933 Has embedded lists rather than subpages. 0.31% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
East Sussex 6 449 Originator blocked in 2008 for sockpuppetry. Last maintenance was 2007. 1.34% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Sussex 6 1228 Originator inactive since 2015. Last substantive maintenance appears to have been 2009. 0.49% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Brighton 6 1635 Author inactive since 2009 0.37% England Jan19-Feb19 TRUE
West Sussex 4 477 Originator edits sporadically, last in 2018. Articles and biographies are based on list in Portal:South East England. 0.84% England Jan19-Jun19 FALSE
Jersey 3 2880 Originator edits sporadically. No maintenance since 2013. 0.10% United Kingdom Jan19-Jun19 TRUE
Merseyside Deleted in May 2019. Re-created and re-deleted. England None TRUE
  • Comment - The above table shows those portals for places that are or may be in the United Kingdom (or that both are and are not in the United Kingdom) for which I have portal data. If your county isn't listed, it probably is one for which I don't yet have county portal data. It doesn't mean that the portal will or will not be deleted. It doesn't express agreement or disagreement with the existence of any political arrangement (and argument may be subject to discretionary sanctions). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
LincolnshireEdit
  • Delete, and oppose re-creation. Narrow topic + Low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of 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".
POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal", but as @Newshunter12 rightly notes, WP:WikiProject Lincolnshire is inactive, and has never shown any interest in the portal.
The last six months of MFDs have shown repeatedly that sub-national geographical areas rarely make viable portals. Even in the United States (which benefits massively from systemic bias) many portals on states have failed and been deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lachlan CarrEdit

User:Lachlan Carr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEBHOST. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Not a blatant case of web hosting, because the author does edit, and an editor is allowed to describe themself briefly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    To clarify, my main concerns are the table of sprinting times and the YouTube... whatever that is. The infobox and similar isn't a big deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ORCID/Items with ORCID identifiersEdit

Wikipedia:ORCID/Items with ORCID identifiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

At 1,223,433 bytes this page is past being useful. The underlying query is available via Wikidata should anyone need it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; we also have Category:Pages with ORCID identifiers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Questions - Are any of them ever instances of anything other than human? Can this list be fed to goats? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems useless and space-wasting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a Bot-only page. It is overwritten repeatedly by User:ListeriaBot. User:ListeriaBot is controlled by User:Magnus Manske. Have you contacted him? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no intention of wasting his time in that manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Your nomination is either to break his bot, or is irrelevant if the bot just recreates it, and you think it a waste of his time to tell him? Am I confused? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral as per analysis by User:SmokeyJoe. This page is Write-Only Memory. If necessary, tag it as such so that humans don't pay attention to it and the bot can play in the dark with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    • No, it does not look write only. Pageviews records show that it has been read ~ 5-15 times every day for the last 90 days. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks likely to have uses not known to the nominator. The size is unremarkable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Magnus Manske (talk · contribs) has not edited for months. This appears to be a bit issue. I don’t see any reason to have a problem with the page per se. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is it an issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It’s an issue to have an inactive bot owner running a runaway experimental bot. You’ve identified an issue, deletion of this page may not be the right solution, maybe the bot should be blocked, first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not a "runaway" bot. Please don't make false and derogatory pronouncements about the work of fellow editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I have notified at User talk:ListeriaBot#MDF notification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is a clear delete. --Izno (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Izno. Do you know the bot? Do you propose to WP:Block User:ListeriaBot if it re-creates the page. User:ListeriaBot does many other edits apart from writing to this page, are you confident that it is not doing anything useful that will not be broken by the deletion of this page? Did the bot writer break any rule by having the bot write this megabyte of data to this page several times per month? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
      • The bot is programmed by the content in the "lead" of the page (to wit, the SPARQL query). Remove that and the bot will stop writing to the page. However, if you remove that, there's no reason to keep the page around. --Izno (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks Izno. NB, I am SPARQL-0, and will have to just trust you on that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • BAG comment - there is concern about this bot being blocked to prevent editing/recreating this page (should the outcome be delete), but the non-blocking solution is just to place {{nobots}} on the (otherwise blank) page post-deletion until the botop responds and/or shuts down the process. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Andhra PradeshEdit

Portal:Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned mini-portal on the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Automated then reverted to manual. A 6-year-old stale "news" page which is actually govt press releases, and a set of eleven-year-old stale DYKs. Few quality articles in its scope; WikiProject AP is inactive; no maintainers; and only 16 views/day. It has only 10 selected articles, just half the POG minimum of 20. (Yes, I do know that after 6 months of specifying a bare minimum of twenty, POG was reverted to an earlier version which makes even that low number a fuzzy target. But I hope that unlike the reverter, editors will exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and recognise that even 20 articles is a woefully small set to provide a decent sample of any non-trivial topic, and that a mere 10 is a risible waste of time.)

Created [12] on 7 July 2008‎ by Ias2008 (talk · contribs), whose last edit to any part of the portal was only one week later, on 14 July 2008 (see Ias2008's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Ias2008 did not follow that guidance.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Andhra_Pradesh shows a small set of sub-pages:

  • Ten selected articles, listed at /Selected articles/Archive. Most of the subpages were rebuilt in 2010 by Sharadbob (talk · contribs), and since then none of them has had anything other than technical changes (template changes, disambiguation, etc). This is just a collection of 9-year-old content forks.
  • /Did you know: 6 items, all added in 2008. 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 eleven-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section.
  • /Andhra Pradesh news: two items, both added in 2013. [13] However, they are both dated simply "April 22", and the header says Today is {{CURRENTDATE}}, so the reader is misled into assuming that the date is April 22 of the current year.
    Worse still, neither of the two stories is sourced from a news report. They are both press releases from the Department of Information and Public Relations of the Govt of Anra Pradesh ... which is a clear breach of WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE.
  • Portal:Andhra Pradesh/Featured picture, which offers no rotation of content, and has displayed the same picture since its creation in 2008. WP:POG says "Some portals update the selected articles and pictures once a month. Others update them weekly, which is preferred." Even on a monthly cycle, this one picture has missed 136 updates.

This neglect is presumably why the portal was "upgraded to a single-page design" [14] in Sept 2018 by @The Transhumanist (TTH). This "upgrade" converted the portal into an automated clone tool, which drew its all its selected articles from the navbox Template:Andhra Pradesh, and made the portal merely a bloated version of the navbox, just like the navbox-clone portalspam which was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two). So in May 2019, I (BHG) reverted [15] the portal to a pre-automated version. That restored the portal to its abandoned state, from which it has not been rescued.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on at least three of the four counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. Category:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh articles contains 5937 articles, but not many of high quality. The table in Category:Andhra Pradesh articles by quality shows only 4 FAs and 45 GAs. That set might be enough to sustain a portal if it included a balanced set of topics, but I haven't checked that. And it would rely on the other conditions being met.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 16 views per day is very low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. The last substantive maintenance was in 2010.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. I have just tagged [16] WP:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh as inactive, because the last discussion on its talkpage was in 2017. The project shows zero interest in the portal. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh and its archive show only one mention of the portal, in 2008.

This portal was created in good faith when active editor numbers were at their peak and portalmania at its height. But for the last 9 years, with fewer editors, there has been no interest in maintaining a portal on this topic, and almost no interest in reading it. Time to just delete it. Since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over nine year long abandoned portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over nine years of hard evidence shows Andhra Pradesh is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles Notes
India 145 30677 Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 211.57 0.47% 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278
Delhi 11 4490 Originator inactive since 2012. 408.18 0.24%
Himachal Pradesh 9 2219 Originator inactive since 2017. 246.56 0.41% 6
Uttar Pradesh 13 5157 Originator edits sporadically. Maintenance stopped around 2011. 396.69 0.25%
Jharkhand 9 1468 Originator inactive since 2017. 163.11 0.61% 13
Rajasthan 12 3388 Originated 2014; originator last edited 2016. Nominator states little maintenance since 2014. 282.33 0.35% 17
Maharashtra 13 4684 Originated 2006. Originator last edited 2010. Most articles created in 2016. No maintenance since 2016. 360.31 0.28% 11
Haryana 9 2469 Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 274.33 0.36% 12
Bihar 10 2935 Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 293.50 0.34% 16
Assam 10 2679 Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 267.90 0.37% 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013.
Gujarat 12 3471 Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 289.25 0.35% 16
West Bengal 14 3531 Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 252.21 0.40% 26 A tangled forest of subpages.
Odisha 11 2505 Originated and abandoned in 2009 by a sporadic editor. 227.73 0.44% 9 No substantive maintenance since 2011.
Andhra Pradesh 16 5497 Originated 2008 and promptly abandoned by sporadic editor. No maintenance since 2010. 343.56 0.29% 10
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Too little readership, too few articles, no maintenance on the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:East FrisiaEdit

Portal:East Frisia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned portal on a narrow topic, the German region of East Frisia. Trivially low pageviews (6/day). WikiProject Frisia is inactive, and the creator's promise at a 2017 MFD to maintain it has not been kept. Narrow scope and lack of quality content means that it is showcasing a bunch of start-class articles.

Portal created [17] in 2010 by @Bermicourt, who has pioneered the "mega-navbox" style of portal. This uses extensive navbox-like lists of articles to provide direct access to lots of them, complete with the built-in previews available to non-logged-in readers on all en.wp pages. It's vastly more usable than the predominant but hideous one-subpage-at-a-time model. Sadly, readers seem no more interested in it than in the subpage portals, so In Jan–Jun 2019 this portal averaged only 6 views day, which is barely above background noise.

I nominated this portal at MFD in 2017. That discussion was closed "Keep to allow Bermicourt time to restart" after Bermicourt acknowledged that maintenance had been poor, and said I'd be disappointed to see it deleted without a decent second chance. Two years later, it's had that second chance, yet it is still in poor shape.

For example, a narrow majority of twelve article-of-the-month pages are start-class:

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on all four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. No. The scope of WP:WikiProject Frisia also includes North Frisia, but even so Category:Frisia articles by quality+subcats has a total of only 1,214 article-space pages, and the table on Category:Frisia articles by quality shows only 1 FA, 1 GA and no A-class.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 6 views day is likely all background noise.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. Since 2010, Bermicourt has been its only ever maintainer.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Frisia exists, but the last actual discussion on its talk page (i.e. one or more editors replying to another editor) was in 2014, so I have tagged it as inactive. [18].

The experience of 6 months of MFDs scrutinising many hundreds of portals has shown that many countries don't even make viable portals, and sub-national regions even more rarely. Despite en.wp's huge systemic bias towards American topics, even many states of the United States had portals which failed. East Frisia is a sub-sub-national region, being an area of the German state of Lower Saxony, so it's unsurprising that it failed.

This portal is a relic of a phase of portalmania when insufficient attention was paid to the WP:POG requirement for "broad topics". I am sure that it was created in good faith, but on closer scrutiny it's clear that it fails all the key tests of a portal. Time to delete it. And since the problems are structural, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Lower Saxony ), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one on an incredibly narrow topic has fallen flat with its second chance. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an abandoned portal. I oppose re-creation, as years of hard evidence shows East Frisia is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers, and the topic is simply too narrow to sustain a portal. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I have changed some of those start class articles to C class. The Frisia project does not have an A class assessment, and would not have achieved any GA or FAs at all, they would have already had that status before the project began. The project is not totally dead, so not active, but sluggish. Anyway I don't care about the portal, and I think the effort should be put into articles instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since the nominator recommends that the backlinks for this portal be moved to Portal:Lower Saxony, I am including metrics for that portal.
East Frisian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
East Frisia 6 162 3.70% Originated 2010. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Region
Lower Saxony 8 931 0.86% Originated 2010. A mega-navbox portal. 31 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Germany 102 14868 0.69% Has 50 subpage articles and 23 food items in embedded list. Subpages are specified to be left unmaintained to preserve state of what was previously a Featured Portal. (However, this makes them subject to subpage rot.) 73 Jan-Feb19 views were 104/15549 Jan19-Feb19 FALSE Country
  • Delete due to very low viewing and not very many articles. It can be seen that Portal:Lower Saxony is not much better. As the nominator says, portals for first-level administrative subdivisions of countries seldom attract very many readers, with a very few exceptions of a few states of the United States, and East Frisia is a region within a state of Germany. Since this already is a meganavbox portal, re-creation seems unlikely to improve it further. (Readers don't see the difference between subpages and a meganavbox. It helps portal maintainers, but it looks the same on the outside.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs) 17:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The reasons given are invalid - there is no threshold for page views even on articles; if article status is really a criterion that's easily solved; there is no notability threshold either, but in any case this is a major historical and cultural region. And it's not even in mainspace, so why are we worried? This is simply part of a campaign to remove most if not all portals which goes against the spirit of the community consensus on portals, to wit there is no notice on the relevant project pages alerting editors to this latest deletion bid. Classic Wikipedia! Bermicourt (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Frisia#Alerts before claiming that there is no notice on the relevant project pages ? DexDor (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sad to see @Bermicourt making ad hominem attacks as a diversionary tactic from the facts that this portal was given time for improvement, and the opportunity was not used.
And Bermicourt's assertion that reasons given are invalid is a falsehood which Bermicourt demonstrably knew at the time of writing to be false, because the nomination clearly asserts that the topic fails the "broad subject areas" criterion, and includes the data to support that.
Far from no notice on the relevant project pages, this MFD is listed via the article alerts system on 3 project pages, each of which is transcluded on the main page of that project (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:East_Frisia_(2nd_nomination))
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Frisia/Article alerts — added 08:07, 19 September 2019‎[19]
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Article alerts — added 08:07, 19 September 2019‎ [20]
  3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Article alerts — added 08:09, 19 September 2019‎ [21]
Note that the last of those notifications was made over ten hours before Bermicourt's post.
Angry editor fires off angry complaint without first spending a few seconds to check their facts. This isn't Classic Wikipedia ... it's Classic Portalista!. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Complaining about ad hominem attacks and then firing back with "portalista" doesn't make your arguments look good either. WP:AN comes to mind where you were asked not to use this term any more. De728631 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Nor is it a great argument to keep claiming that anything another editor says that you disagree with is "false", meanwhile conveniently forgetting points they have made before, for example, that the reason they have taken a break from maintaining portals is precisely because of the total uncertainly and mess caused, first by the mass creation of portals and now by their mass deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: Bermicourt sadly chose to launch an attack based on a demonstrably false premise. His falsehoods bounced back at him.
I call claims false only if they are false. If @Bermicourt doesn't like their claims being called false, then the solution is don't make false claims. Simple!
The previous MFD was in April 2017. The WP:ENDPORTALS began in April 2018, precisely one year and 5 days later. The mass creations began in July or August 2018. So Bermicourt's claim that they didn't follow up on the assurances in April 2017 because of the the mass creation of portals and now by their mass deletion ignores the chronology. (It can be true only if Bermicourt in 2017 had precognition of events in mid 2018. That seems unlikely.) It also misrepresents the current process as mass deletion. Not so; mass deletion was applied only to the mass-created spam. What has been happening since early May is a prolonged series of individual deletion discussions on older portals, in most cases with exceptionally detailed analysis and assessments of the portal. Bermicourt's decision to label this prolonged and hugely time-consuming process as "mass deletion" is at the very best a deeply uncivil slur on other editors.
Please note that I took great care in my nomination to emphasise my sincere belief that Bermicourt acted in good faith (albeit in some ways mistakenly), and to explicitly praise his good innovations. It is a great pity that Bermicourt has chosen yet again to respond to my civility with untruths and misrepresentations, and to complain where those are rebutted. This sort of irrational anger was the pattern adopted by Bermicourt in several other MFDs of portals which he had created, and it suggests an unfortunate combination of WP:OWNership and lack of anger management. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 18, 2019Edit

Portal:Parliamentary procedureEdit

Portal:Parliamentary procedure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Pointless micro-portal on the narrow topic of parliamentary procedure. Abandoned since 2014, with trivially low readership (2/day). Redundant to the navbox Template:Parliamentary procedure.

Portal created [22] on 17 April 2008‎ by Parlirules (talk · contribs), whose last edit to any part of the portal was only two weeks later,[23] on 1 May 2008 (see Parlirules's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Parlirules did not follow that guidance.

The portal and sub-pages were tweaked a bit in 2013 by @Northamerica1000 , and again in 2014 by @Coreyemotela, who was blocked soon after as a confirmed sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer. Coreyemotela did wisely move the portal from Portal:Parliamentary Procedure to Portal:Parliamentary procedure, but none of the sub-pages have been changed since that move (apart from those linking to other portals and WikiProjects etc).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Parliamentary procedure shows a tiny set of sub-pages. There are no selected articles etc, just four pages with lists: (/Manuals, /Motions, /Motions/Misc) plus /Topics which simply transcludes the navbox Template:Parliamentary procedure.

There is massive overlap between the navbox and the three lists, so the whole thing is pointless. The navbox does a vastly better job, because it is transcluded in the articles, so it can be used to go directly between them without the intermediate step of the 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". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on all four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. No. Category:Parliamentary procedure is quite slim, until you burrow into its subcats of actual motions passed by various bodies. The table on Category:Parliamentary Procedure articles by quality has only 197 pages in all, some of which are categories. The set includes no FA- or A-class, and only one B-class.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 2 views per day is likely all background noise.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. The last substantive maintenance was in 2014.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure exists, but the last discussion on its talk page was in 2016, so I tagged it as inactive.[24]. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure has never been archived, and contains zero mentions of this portal.

The portal as it stands is pointless, and I see little scope for improvement. It fails all the key tests in POG. Time to just delete it. And since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Politics), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over five year long abandoned portal on an incredibly narrow topic. I oppose re-creation, as over five years of hard evidence shows Parliamentary procedure is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem, with the added benefit of creating a problem where there was none. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Parliamentary Procedure Related PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline
Parliamentary procedure 3 270 1.11% Originator came in 2008, did their thing in 2008, went in 2008, back twice, most recently in 2017. Median pageviews are 2. No maintenance since 2013. 4 Jan19-Jun19
Law 103 4532 2.27% Originated 2005 by editor who is inactive since 2007. 71 Appears to have been no maintenance since 2012. Jan19-Jun19
Politics 187 2108 8.87% Originated 2005 by editor who departed in 2005. 61 Jan19-Jun19
Parliamentary ProcedureEdit

Portal:OdishaEdit

Portal:Odisha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned bonsai portal on the Indian state of Odisha, formerly known as Orissa. Automated then reverted to manual. Only 9 articles, plus 8-year-old stale news and a ten-year-old stale DYK. Few quality articles in its scope; WikiProject at best semi-active; no maintainers; and only 11 views/day.

Created [25] as Portal:Orissa on 14 March 2009‎ by Ravichandar84 (talk · contribs), whose last edit to any part of the portal was only three weeks later, on 6 April 2009 (see Ravichandar84's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Ravichandar84 did not follow that guidance.

In 2011, a significant amount of maintenance work was done by Odisha1 (talk · contribs) (Odisha1's portal-space contribs), who also created some sub-pages. Odisha1's last edit to any part of the portal was in July 2011, after which there is no sign of any maintenance or expansion, apart from technical edits such as disambiguation and removing or replacing deleted image files.

In June 2011, Koavf rightly moved Portal:Orissa to Portal:Odisha, following promptly after the legal renaming of the state.

That left the portal with a slim set of sub-pages, cluttered by some redirects left over from a restructuring. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Odisha shows:

  • Portal:Odisha/Selected articles, with 5 articles (one of which is a redirect, so really 4) plus Portal:Odisha/Selected biography with 5 articles. That's a total 9, less than half the WP:POG minimum of 20. (Yes, I do know that after 6 months of specifying a bare minimum of twenty, POG was reverted to an earlier version which makes that a fuzzy target. But I hope that unlike the reverter, editors will exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and recognise that even 20 articles is a woefully small set to provide a decent sample of any non-trivial topic, and that a mere 9 is a risible waste of time.)
    None of the 9 pages has had any non-trivial edits since 2011.
  • Portal:Odisha/Did you know, which since 2009‎ has displayed the same item. This is a genuine DYK-source item, but 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". This ten-year-old item loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section.
  • Portal:Odisha/News has displayed the same items since 2011. [26] They are dated only as "Jun 19" etc, with no year, so they mislead the reader into thinking that this is news from the current year.

So it's just a slim set of 8–10 year-old content forks. This neglect is presumably why the portal was "restarted" [27] in Feb 2019 by @The Transhumanist (TTH). This "restart" converted the portal into an automated clone tool, which drew all its selected articles from the navbox Template:Odisha, and made the portal just a bloated version of the navbox, just like the navbox-clone portalspam which was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two). So in May 2019, I (BHG) reverted [28] the portal to a pre-automated version. That restored the portal to its abandoned state, from which it has not been rescued.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on all four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. contains only 2500 articles, but very few of high quality. The table in Category:Odisha articles by quality shows only 5 GA/FA articles. That set is far too small to present a balanced set of topics without using much lower-grade articles, and making severe compromises on quality.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 11 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. The last substantive maintenance was in 2011.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Odisha is at best semi-active, so I have just tagged it as semi-active, [29]. The project shows zero interest in the portal. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Odisha has never been archived, and contains zero mentions of this portal.

This portal was created in good faith when active editor numbers were at their peak and portalmania at its height and when there seems to have been a culture of ignoring much of the portal guidelines. But for the last 8 years, with fewer editors, there has been no interest in maintaining a portal on this topic, and almost no interest in reading it. Time to just delete it. And since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian State PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Comments Ratio Percent Articles Notes Parent Portal Type
India 145 30677 Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 211.57 0.47% 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Asia Country
Delhi 11 4490 Originator inactive since 2012. 408.18 0.24% India State
Himachal Pradesh 9 2219 Originator inactive since 2017. 246.56 0.41% 6 India State
Uttar Pradesh 13 5157 Originator edits sporadically. Maintenance stopped around 2011. 396.69 0.25% India State
Rajasthan 12 3388 Originated 2014; originator last edited 2016. Nominator states little maintenance since 2014. 282.33 0.35% 17 India State
Maharashtra 13 4684 Originated 2006. Originator last edited 2010. Most articles created in 2016. No maintenance since 2016. 360.31 0.28% 11 India State
Haryana 9 2469 Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 274.33 0.36% 12 India State
Bihar 10 2935 Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 293.50 0.34% 16 India State
Assam 10 2679 Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 267.90 0.37% 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013. India State
Gujarat 12 3471 Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 289.25 0.35% 16 India State
West Bengal 14 3531 Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 252.21 0.40% 26 A tangled forest of subpages. India State
Odisha 11 2505 Originated and abandoned in 2009 by a sporadic editor. 227.73 0.44% 9 No substantive maintenance since 2011. India State
OdishaEdit
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. News is easy to automate, so that there is even less excuse for having that be obsolete. Perhaps the only reason for DYKs in portals is that having a general trivia section is fun for the portal author (even if it is against the guidelines). Low readership, too few articles that are not maintained.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over eight year long abandoned portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over eight years of hard evidence shows Odisha is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17, 2019Edit

Portal:GhanaEdit

Portal:Ghana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Improperly maintained portal that violates WP:POG.

  • The semi-active WikiProject Ghana only lists thirteen articles in the upper quality tiers (FA, GA, FL, etc).
  • Improperly maintained by the creator, and the only other legitimate maintainer was indefinitely blocked on New Years' 2013. Among the many African nation portals fervently maintained by NA1k, and just like the other similarly-nominated portals, NA1k's changes are merely aesthetic.
  • Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are 21 for the portal versus 5035 for the parent article, or .4171%. ToThAc (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save for a paint job by a serial portal one-off updater. The one biography sub-page was last updated in 2010, and it's world renowned subject died in August 2018, which speaks to the sloppiness of NA1K's update. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Natsubee, who (being very generous) abandoned it in Oct. 2009 and has made one edit to this portal and portal space since. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 21 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Ghana having 5,038 views per day in the same period).
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghana is best described as inactive (the last editor to editor conversation was in Oct. 2016), and the portal's only ever mention on the talk page was an August 2019 post by an outside editor stating the portal was abandoned and asked if anyone was interested in maintaining it, which got no response. The portal isn't mentioned on the main page by name, either. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Ghana is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • When the portal was updated with transclusions, I added the entry for Kofi Atta Annan directly to the main portal page (diff), which via transclusion, posts the most up-to-date content relative to the subject's page. In the process, I commented-out the selected biography section (diff). The previously outdated content from the single entry at Portal:Ghana/Selected biography was not included on the page after the portal was improved. Not sure why the user above seems to think it was, but after I finished updating, it was not. This improved the portal, providing WP:READERS with up-to-date information, rather than denigrating it. This is certainly not sloppy; rather, it is precise. I went ahead and updated the subpage as well (diff), despite it not being used in the portal at this time. North America1000 09:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The bio was not a redirect and was still part of the portal, so it should have been updated or removed when you did your update, so as not to mislead readers who looked at the sub-pages. Your "update" was shoddy work, which is why I pointed it out for what it was. Also, the fact that you have had to edit the same brief comment seven times already after posting just adds to the serious WP:CIR concerns that @BrownHairedGirl has raised about you. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I could have previewed more when commenting, to avoid editing the page multiple times, so I'll keep this in mind. Fact is, though, per the page's revision history, BHG has also engaged in this same multiple editing of their own commentary, yet you only criticise me. A bit hypocritical. If you're unable to understand how transclusions work in portals, perhaps the CIR issues are actually your issue. I would critique some of your work, in a friendly, constructive manner, of course, but I notice that you have never created an article on English Wikipedia. link. If you're going to berate the work of others, at least get your facts straight. North America1000 11:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@North America Nowhere in this pages history has BHG edited a little paragraph of hers seven times, so her ce is not at all akin to yours. I understand perfectly well how transclusions in portals work; it's you that fails to understand that that grossly outdated Bio page was still part of this portal, could still have been read by readers who went to the sub-pages, and should have been taken care of when you did your update, if it had been a competent update. That I haven't created an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant, and I have plenty of other work you can critique by going through my edits. I look forward to your response. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - The recent work by User:Northamerica1000 is not just a paint job. The content-forked subpage structure has been upgraded to transclusion, which reduces but does not eliminate the need for maintenance, and there is no designated maintainer. The repair by NA1k amounts to putting a new transmission in a car with a failing engine, not purely aesthetic. The portal still has only 21 average daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nominator @ToThAc has misunderstood the effects of @NA1K's edit, which are perhaps more easily understood if they are viewed as one big diff[30]. What NA1K actually did was to bypass the content-forked sub-pages, and instead use {{Transclude random excerpt}} to embed a list of 36 articles.
The edit history obscures this, because two of NA1K's long-documented anti-social editing habits are displayed here: their tendency to take ten or twenty edits to do what other editors would do in a single save, and their failure to use helpful edit summaries (e.g. including in the edit summary a link to the article being added).
Here is a list of the 36 articles, prefixed with the quality assessment applied to them by WikiProject Ghana:
Note that in many cases, the assessments are way out-of-date. For example, many of the articles rated start-class are actually at C-class standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete. Despite the errors in the nomination, @ToThAc is right about other points.
The list of the portal's current selected articles, which I posted above, illustrates the folly of trying to rebuild the portal. There simply are not not enough high-quality articles available, so NA1K chose a "never mind the quality, feel the width" approach. Yes, many of the articles are better than their current assessment rating indicates, but that failure of assessment simply another way in which how any portal on his topic is hobbled by limitations of the barely active WP:WikiProject Ghana.
Category:WikiProject Ghana articles shows that there are 5500 articles in the project scope, but few of them are high quality, as the table shows:
  FA   A   GA   B   C   Start   Stub   FL   List   Category   Disambig   Draft   File   Portal   Project   Template   NA   ??? Total
1012771561,0763,09401392,270382128151411159138,069
Additionally, the years of neglect of the portal were followed by a one-off update of dubious quality. NA1K initially added themself as a "maintainer", but this was one of no less than 42 portals of which they claimed to be a maintainer: (Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Biochemistry, Coffee, Colorado, Companies, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Evolutionary biology, Food, Free and open-source software, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Housing, Hungary, Islands, Italy, Kuwait, Liquor, Lithuania, Moldova, Money, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Oman, Ontario, Panama, Physics, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Supermarkets, Tanks, Vietnam) They subsequently wisely removed themself as "maintainer" of all 42 after this was challenged as implausible.
So we are still left with a portal without a maintainer, and without an active WikiProject which might help recruit some maintainers.
WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on at least three of the four counts:
  1.  ?? Borderline no. As the table above shows, there is not enough high-quality content to build a balanced portal of high quality. When the numbers are this tight, it is not possible to build a portal which combines the three needed attributes: A/ number of articles, B/ balance of topics, and C/ quality of articles. At least one of the there attributes has to be sacrificed, and the post-NA1K portal sacrifices quality.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 21 views per day is low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. Not even one. In the last ten years, its creator User:Natsubee has made only one edit to the portal, and NA1K has withdrawn their claim to maintain it.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Ghana is generously tagged as "semi-active", but "in-active." would probably be more accurate. And as @Newshunter12 helpfully notes, it has never shown any interest in the portal.
This portal is yet another relic of a rush of portalmania in the late 2000s, when editor numbers were at their peak, and were often assumed (wrongly) to be ever-growing. But for the last decade, with fewer editors, there has been no interest in maintaining a portal on this topic, and almost no interest in reading it. Time to just delete it. And since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Africa), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep there is no requirement that portals need FA, FL, GA or A class articles to be sustainable. WP:POG says the portal must have "enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section". The table above lists 246 articles of C-class and above, which is far more than you need for the featured content section. The GAs and FA alone would provide about half the material. Countries which aren't tiny do constitute broad topics (Ghana has a population of about 30 million, which makes it more populous than, say, Australia). Sure, it hasn't got many page views, but that is a fundamental flaw of the portal system in general and consensus is against getting rid of portals entirely. I don't really understand the logic behind the maintainer arguments, whether the creator has maintained it is irrelevant (if that wasn't the case then even highly active portals could be deleted) and the fact that somebody has been making substantial changes to it recently suggests that it is not abandoned. Hut 8.5 18:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Hut 8.5: "there is no requirement that portals need FA, FL, GA or A class articles to be sustainable" – Yes there is. ToThAc (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Nope, your link doesn't say that at all. Please read it in full, it allows an article "which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively". A typical B class article will certainly deal with the subject substantially. Later criteria make it even more clear that it's not expecting GA class and above, because it insists that the article shouldn't be marked as a stub and shouldn't have any cleanup tags. No article would ever get anywhere near GA with either. Hut 8.5 21:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5 This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save for a little paint job by a serial one-off updater with a history of shoddy work, and who likes portals in general so they try to throw wrenches into random or anticipated MfD's when they can. WP:POG requires portals have large numbers of readers and maintainers, and this has neither. There is also no community consensus to keep junk portals, nor has their ever been one. You are misstating the outcome of the crude RfC in 2018 that asked about eliminating all portals in one go, which was rejected. Subjective broadness about population means nothing here, only this portal's failing of WP:POG. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I was planning on expanding the portal periodically, but since it's nominated for deletion, I won't be doing so, unless it is retained. This work was not some sort of "paint job" or "one-off" work at all. The work I performed significantly improved the portal compared to its former state, and was certainly not "shoddy"; it was precise and proper, and served to provide up-to-date content for Wikipedia's WP:READERS. If users don't like some of the article entries, they can be easily changed, and matters can always be discussed at a portal talk page. Since this portal appears likely to be deleted at this point, this process will unlikely have a chance to come into fruition. North America1000 10:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@NA1K, you added yourself as a maintainer to 42 portals, including this one. When the credibility of that was challenged, you removed yourself as maintainer. Now you state that you were planning on expanding the portal periodically, etc, as if you were the maintainer.
So what's the game here? Are you are the maintainer of those 42 portals, or not? Or do you plan to claim to be the maintainer of each of them only when you find it expedient to do so, while denying it the rest of the time?
You added 36 articles. 18 of them are assessed as start-class, and two as stub-class. You write If users don't like some of the article entries, they can be easily changed ... which is basically saying that you want other editors to follow you around as you do these driveby "updates", and then challenge you on the very very basic issues which a very modest amount of checking would have avoided in the first place. That's very bad conduct, and prolific editors who require a full-time cleanup crew behind them eventually find themselves exhausting the community's patience. If you really insist on doing these driveby makeovers of portals on topics where you have no experience or expertise and where the WikiPrroject is not active ... then for God's sake would you slow down and do some of the very basic checks?
Your long-term never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width approach to portals is a significant factor in why we have so many abandoned junk portals. As you know, both your RFAs were notable for the high number of editors who noted your long track record of bad judgement, and the evience here and in many other recent issues is that your judgement has not improved. Please learn from these warnings: stop being so cavalier, and get outside opinions on your judgement rather than charging away with a forest of trivial edits which don't even have decent edit summaries. For example, in this edit [31] you added Cape Coast and Kakum National Park, but with vanilla edit summary Portal further updated / expanded with new selection(s). It would have been spectacularly easy for you to simply write "add Kakum National Park + Cape Coast", creating links for others to assess. After 8 years as an editor, it's astonishing that you either haven't figured that very basic aspect of working collaboratively, or couldn't be bothered communicating what you are actually doing.
Instead of all this forest of black box edits, try being systematic. If you see a portal which you think you want to "rescue", go to its talk page, make a list of the articles you intend to add, explaining how and why you made the selection ... and the post at POG and at the relevant WikiProjects, asking for comments. That way, the proposals can be examined before you make the change, and others can call a halt if you're planning to just splat in starts and stubs, as you did here. Then you can add the list in one go, rather than creating a whole screenfull of opaque edits on the history page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── A reply, bulletized per the points by BHG above:

  • I removed myself as a portal maintainer because I wanted to, and particularly per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, nothing more. There is no "game" here.
  • The assessments for Ghana-related articles are a mess, and are often inaccurate. For example, see Category:B-Class Ghana articles and note articles listed there such as 1996 in Ghana, 2005 in Ghana and 2010 in Ghana, all of which have exactly one reference each. These are certainly not B-class articles. It would be incompetent to blindly add these articles to the portal simply because they are (incorrectly) rated as B-class, and would not improve the portal.
  • Africa-related articles and content on English Wikipedia suffer from Wikipedia:Systemic bias, whereby editors do not seem to spend as much time working on these topics compared to other topics. This is part of the reason why there are so few GA and FA articles for Ghana-related articles. Perhaps some sort of drive should occur to encourage more work on Africa-related articles.
  • The articles I added provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. I specialize in geographic/historical and food/drink topics on Wikipedia. I also specialize in other topics. The articles added to the Ghana portal cover aspects of the country's peoples, geography, history, industries, sports, notable persons, and other aspects. The "never-mind-the-quality" comment above is incorrect, as I assessed these articles relative to their suitability for this portal, for a topic that is negatively affected by systemic bias and whose articles are rated in a highly inaccurate, misleading manner. Again, these entries were assessed before being added to the portal, but not blindly based upon (often incorrect) assessments on talk pages.
  • The talk page for the portal has received no discussion at all, and consists entirely of notices. BHG's addition of a bunch of hoops to jump through for an unused talk page would be fine for a well-read portal, but this portal has not been maintained in years, and again, there's no discussion on the talk page at all. Collaboration is great and desired, but there has to actually be a potential for collaboration to occur. Additions to the portal are easily discerned by clicking on "edit this page" and noting the article additions that were performed. Adequate edit summaries were also provided, although a bit generic at times, they provide the gist of what had occurred. All of this, again, for a portal that has received little work and low readership.
  • Regarding RfA, I notice that BHG is essentially a "legacy admin", one who was granted the adminship tools during a period of time when requests for adminship received little actual scrutiny compared to matters today, when adminship was not a "big deal". Yet, BHG feels entitled to talk down to me, like they are somehow superior.
  • I feel that BHG has developed a bias against those who work on portals, referring to portal editors in a consistently negative manner, calling them names such as "the portalistas" and oftentimes demeaning those that post at the WikiProject portals talk page, like actual collaboration to improve portals is somehow wrong.
  • I feel that BHG has demonstrated a potential confirmation bias against portal editors, as is demonstrated by the user formerly repeatedly referring to me as a "liar" in MfD discussions and elsewhere. Meanwhile, BHG has apparently ignored that WP:POG has been contested as lacking validity as an actual guideline page, as per recent Village pump discussions. The discussion was recently archived here sans any formal closures.
  • BHG and others continue to treat POG as gospel, despite all of this. See the hatted commentary I have provided below for more information. That's fine, and others are entitled to their opinion, but it could also be argued that those that ignore this evidence of POG'S lack of validity are lacking competency, in favor of a predisposed opinion instead of the facts of the matter regarding POG.
– The fundamental problem of WP:POG's lede being decided upon by a single user –

At its inception, WP:POG never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. Instead, label Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines as an information page using the {{information page}} template. There are many reasons why.

  • The gist of the lead for the portal was added subjectively and unilaterally by one user in 2006 (diff), and no discussion appears to have actually occurred about it until relatively recently. Guidelines should be decided upon via consensus, not by a unilateral addition of content from one user. Meantime, the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, which furthermore, was added to the page at its infancy.
  • Furthermore, the page was shortly thereafter marked as historical (diff), with an edit summary stating, "{{historical}}, not an active proposal per lack of talk page activity; suspect lack of advertisement".
  • After this, and importantly, the historical template was removed (diff), with an edit summary stating, "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline, but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators." (Underline emphasis mine).
  • Per the diffs, the page was not even intended as a proposed guideline from the start, and no consensus was ever formed for the content therein. The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page, because there doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion leading to that change. It's like someone just slapped the Guideline page template page on it and it just simply stuck thereafter, sans any consensus.
  • Furthermore, the lead of the present WP:POG page is worded as an illogical and bizarre syllogism. Some users have been stating that if a portal does not receive what they deem to be adequate page views or maintenance, then the topic itself is somehow not broad enough. Of course, this standard could not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia, because people would reject this as absurd. For example, the Physics article does not receive a great deal of page maintenance, yet the topic itself is obviously broad in scope, both in terms of the topic itself and in terms of the amount of related content available on English Wikipedia. The manner in which this syllogism is worded on the page is subjective and inferior, and has been misused to define topical scope as based upon page views and page maintainers, rather than upon the actual scope of a given topic.
  • Don't take all of this wrong, and I will keep the constructive criticism here in mind, and I wish everyone here well. It is my hope that we can all get along, learn from one-another, and function in a collegial, positive manner. North America1000 12:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Sigh, NA1K, I called you a liar because you were repeatedly telling lies. I am glad that you desisted from doing so, and I desisted from using the p-word.
If you want us to learn from one another, you need to demonstrate some ability to learn, for example not making dozens of edits when one would do. Problems I have noted are real, and repeatedly documented by others, years ago, but even on those very very simple things, you have not learnt (that slow learning was noted at in your RFAs). Your comment Additions to the portal are easily discerned by clicking on "edit this page" and noting the article additions that were performed is utterly extraordinary: the whole purposes of edit summaries is so that other editors don't have to view diffs or view up the page or the edit window to get a good picture of what was done. How hard is it for you paste the title of the page added into an edit summary? It takes me literally about five seconds to type the ten characters in "<tab><end>add [[<ctrl-V>]]"
As to function in a collegial, positive manner, heaven help us. I set out above two simple suggestions for how you could work on portals in a collegial, positive manner, and you just dismissed them both. Make up your mind: do you want to be collegial, or not?
It is astonishing that after all this time, you still make spurious comparisons between the standards applied to articles and to portals. They have very different purposes, and you seem oblivious to the fact that most of the portals which existed even pre-portalspam were abandoned junk, which is why most of them have been deleted.
As to portal guidelines, this is the wrong place to complain about them. But it's very notable that none of the portal enthusiasts objected at all to POG for years ... yet that all of a sudden, when its provisions actually started to be used to apply some sort of quality thresholds after the portals project never even bothered systematic assessment of portals, NA1K and a few others suddenly decided that the guidelines they were happy with all that time are actually rubbish, and that they were never valid in the first place.
I have suggested many times before that those who want changes to POG or to deprecate it should open an RFC, but they don't. In the meantime, however bad the wording, it's very clear that POG wants portals on broad topics with lots of readers and lots of maintainers and active WikiProjects .. and that many hundreds of MFDs have upheld that view.
If you want to follow SmokeyJoe's path and seek to deprecate POG as a guideline, then go ahead and open that RFC. If it passes, then we can just use WP:COMMONSENSE to delete the almost-unread abandoned junk portals with no active Wikiproject, and skip all the wikilawyering about POG's bad wording.
But in the meantime, it is fundamentally wrong that this portal was substantively rebuilt by one editor with no previous experience or involvement in the topic area, who
  1. made their own undocumented decisions to ignore WikiProject assessments
  2. rejects requests to explain how they chose the topics
  3. left the portal with no visible list of the articles added other by editing the source code: there's no list on the talk page, no list on the face of the portal, not even links in edit summaries
  4. cluttered the page history with dozens of edits which could easily have been combined
  5. left no notice on either the portal talk page or the WikiProject talk page of what they had done
This is the complete opposite of collaboration. Instead of the transparency on which collaboration is built, it's maximum opacity. And the repeated failure of a few portals editors to figure out very basic stuff like this is why they get replies which they feel want to being talked down to.
Meanwhile, this remains a portal built from articles which are far from high quality, and whose WikiProject is at best semi-active. Which is part of the reason why I still recommend its deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Hut 8.5: POG is sloppily written in this area, with some fuzzy and even contradictory text. But WP:POG#Article_selection says "of high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively" ... which clearly deprecates NA1K's use of set which is 50% start-class, and where two of the remaining 18 are assessed as stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    WP:ATD: we don't delete pages because of problems which can be resolved through editing. There are exceptions but they are generally severe problems such as BLP violations. That's policy and it applies here just as in article space. If start-class articles aren't suitable for inclusion in the portal then they can be replaced with higher class articles. It's not like this isn't possible, there are 11 GAs and 1 FA which haven't been used yet.
I have to say that I think this comment is appalling. Northamerica1000 made a good faith effort to improve the portal, and is now being rewarded with character assassination, personal attacks and other insults. I'm not surprised s/he doesn't want to make further changes to the portal and that these MfDs aren't getting broader participation. If you really can't have a discussion about a portal without making personal remarks about people on the other side then perhaps you shouldn't be taking part in the discussion. It's certainly putting me off. Hut 8.5 17:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5:, editing requires both good faith and competence. It's hard to tell what is lacking in NA1K's case, but some long-standing problems recurred here, and NA1K continues to resist improvement. I stand by my comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
PS Hut, you are right that there are 11 GAs and 1 FAs which are unused in the portal, rejected in favour of stubs and starts. Why? What's that about? NA1k has explained none of that.
More broadly, it seems to me that you you miss the whole point of portals. They are not articles, which we keep unless they have BLP/etc problems, because they are content. Portals are not content.
Per WP:PORTAL, portals exist as an enhanced main page for the topic. If they aren't enhancing, we shouldn't be luring readers away from the head article ... and the theoretical possibility that they might be improved has been mostly unfulfilled for a decade. So readers have been lured for years to portals which serve small sets of ancient content forks, stale new and ancient fake DYKs ... when there is a head article that does the job better. If those portals were in article space, we'd simply redirect them to the head article.
Now NA1K is running around a vast range of topics in which they have no expertise or experience, trying to do an ARS-style "rescue" with non-transparent, unexplained, seemingly perverse selections with zero engagement with topic experts. In this case they skipped past 92% of the FAs/GAs to choose stubs and starts. What's going on? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Go and read WP:ATD again. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Page, not article. It applies to files, templates, redirects and anything else. Arguing that portals are not articles is meaningless, because ATD does not apply only to articles. ATD is a policy and you have to abide by it. Don't like that? Start an RfC to get rid of it or amend it so it doesn't cover portals. The rest of your comment is just tipping a load of other insults over Northamerica1000, which I'm not going to dignify with a response. Hut 8.5 20:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5 I disagree that WP:ATD applies to portals, but even if it did, in order for there to be an alternative to deletion there would need to be maintainers for this portal, which there are none. NA1K withdrew as a maintainer, for whatever that was ever worth, so this portal is still abandoned. For a decade, this portal has not had maintainers, so why should we wait another ten years? Do you think that maintainers and readers are going to just suddenly appear at this portal like mana from Heaven? It fails WP:POG today and should be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
ATD does apply to portals. Portals are blatantly pages and the policy applies to decisions to delete all pages. A local consensus can't decide that it doesn't apply here because policies represent the highest level of consensus. I find it very strange that you're bemoaning the lack of people making changes to this portal when literally within hours a significant improvement was made. If it really keeps you happy then if this portal is kept I volunteer to replace the start- and stub-class selected articles with others. I'm sure it'll take less time than has been spent arguing about it. Hut 8.5 06:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5 editing by one driveby editor cannot resolve the core problems with this portal: narrow topic, low readership, lack of multiple maintainers, lack of WikiProject involvement. Those have all been set out above, but you seem to have let your evident anger cloud your judgement.
It's a pity that you simply dismiss my observations on the very poor quality of NA1K's work. All of them stand up to scrutiny, and while they sure are uncomfortable reading, they need to be stated here because they are both true and highly relevant to the fate of this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment on content, not the contributor. As an admin you should know that and attacking people or their motivations is not a valid argument. The goalposts seem to keep shifting: now that the portal has received some maintenance, the problem isn't that the portal is being maintained, and it's become that it doesn't have multiple maintainers and that there is no involvement from a Wikiproject. There is no requirement for either. Hut 8.5 06:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5: Sorry, but I think you're still misinterpreting BrownHairedGirl's points, period. She has only called out NA1k's edits to portals that evidently don't address their purpose (and I'm especially concerned that you accused her of ad hominem without basis or proof), and I don't consider that "commenting on contributors" since it's not necessarily attacking someone without basis or reason. ToThAc (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5: POG does require both multiple maintainers and a WikiProject. Read POG.
The goalposts are not shifting. They have been in POG all along.
And no, there was no personal attack. Read WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?, and stop trying to smear me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – The following Good-class articles from Category:GA-Class Ghana articles have been added/placed in a new Good articles section in the portal. The Featured-class article Nafaanra has also been added to the portal. It's all probably moot now anyway, since the portal is likely to be deleted anyway. North America1000 06:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – More articles rated as B-class have been added to the portal (diff). More expansion could occur, of course, but it appears that the portal will be deleted. North America1000 03:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, concur with Hut8.5. Countries are clearly a broad topic, and that a potential maintainer has been bullied into not speaking up for it is just wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 16:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:West BengalEdit

Portal:West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
Summary

Abandoned portal on the Indian state of West Bengal, with low pageviews (14/day). Was intensively curated from 2006 to 2008, and was sloppily awarded Featured portals status in 2007. The WP:WikiProject West Bengal lost interest in it thereafter, and it has been abandoned since.

Now it is a huge forest of eleven-year-old content forks, which was so dire that it was automated by TTH. The automation was rightly reverted, so it remains an abandoned relic which fails at least 3 of WP:POG's 4 key tests.

History and analysis

The portal was created [32] in October 2006‎ by Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), who did significant maintenance on it until 22 May 2008, mostly adding new DYKs (see Dwaipayanc's portal-space contribs). Many of the selected articles/biogs/pics were added by Riana (talk · contribs), whose last edit to the portal was on 16 January 2008 (see Riana's portal-space contribs).

The Featured portals status was awarded in March 2007 after this review. At the time, the portal was in fairly good shape by the standards of the time, but the review is unimpressive reading: there isn't even a checklist of criteria, and most of the discussion is about colours and minor points of formatting. 12 years later, the portal is in a dire state, but the FP process has been discontinued, so there is no way of holding a new review to remove the star from the top right of the portal.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:West Bengal shows several screenfulls of pages, but the numbers are a bit misleading. Over half of the pages are DYK archives, and about a third of the selected articles/biogs/pics are blanks. Here's the breakdown:

  • Portal:West Bengal/Did you know, and sub-pages /1 to /133. And no gaps. It seems that the way Dwaipayanc worked was to create a new archive page for the old item whenever a new one was added. The last additions were in 2008, so these are all stale. 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 eleven-year-old items lose the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section. The sample I have checked are all genuine DYKs unlike the fakes which adorn so many other portals, but facts asserted accurately may no longer be true after a decade, and all these items are presented without a date, so the reader has no warning of their age.
  • Portal:West Bengal/News displays one item, dated "June 18". However the linked news report is dated June 2009, and there is no warning to the reader that this "news" is from a decade ago.
  • Portal:West Bengal/Selected articles has sub-pages /1 to /9, all created in early 2007. (/10, /11, /12 & /13 are blanks).
    /1 to /9 were both converted in 2018 by Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs) to use {{Transclude lead excerpt}}, so they always use the current version of the article. However, since 2008, /2, /4, /5, /6, /7] and /8 have all had only technical edits such as disambiguation or image updating. The only textual edit is this trivial one[33] to /3.
  • Portal:West Bengal/Selected biography has sub-pages 1 to 17. (/18, /19 and /20 are all blank). All 17 were created in 2007, and none of them has been converted to automatic excerpt. I have examined all 17, and can find only one non-technical edit since 2008: a minor tweak[34] to /11.
    It appears that there was a hectic rush to create new sub-pages before the FP candidacy, and that those involved gave up afterwards.

So all those screenfulls amount to two self-updating pages, and a massive set of stale content forks which are more than a decade old. There is almost nothing here worth keeping ... which is presumably why in February 2019‎ @The Transhumanist (TTH) "restarted" [35] the portal as an automated page which drew its "selected articles" list soley from Template:West Bengal topics. That made the portal just a bloated version of the navbox, just like TTH's navbox-clone portalspam which was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two). So in May 2019‎, I (BHG) reverted the automation, and restored [36] the last curated version.

Four months after that de-automation, it's unchanged: still a sea of decade-long rot.

Assessment

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on at least three of the four counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. Borderline. West Bengal had a 2011 population of 91 million, so it's not a tiny place. However, high quality en.wp coverage is thin, with only 22 GA/FA articles (see table at Category:West Bengal articles by quality). That set is too small to present a balanced set of topics without using lower-grade articles, and making compromises on quality, though with 82 B-class articles, the compromise might not be too big.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 14 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. See detailed analysis above; with minor exceptions, maintenance ended in 2008. The last human post on the Portal's talk page was a question about maps in 2007. The only posts since then are a pair of AWB-driven notifications.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject West Bengal is active, but the last mention on its talk page of Portal:West Bengal was the February 2007 announcement of the featured portal candidacy.

This portal is relic of a rush of portal-mania in the years when editor numbers were at their peak, and were often assumed (wrongly) to be ever-growing. But for the last decade, with fewer editors, there has been no interest in maintaining a portal on this topic, and almost no interest in reading it. Time to just delete it. And since the problems are deep-seated and long-standing, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this stale one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over decade-long abandoned portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows West Bengal is not a broad enough topic per WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Haryana 9 2469 0.36% Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Assam 10 2679 0.37% Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Bihar 10 2935 0.34% Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Gujarat 12 3471 0.35% Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
West Bengal 14 3531 0.40% Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 26 A tangled forest of subpages. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
India 145 30677 0.47% Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Jan19-Feb19 FALSE Country
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. The subpage structure is a tangled forest, like the flora of parts of West Bengal. There are still some content forks that are not being maintained. Low readership. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal is worthless.Catfurball (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata/List of biographiesEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata/List of biographies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This page and all of its sub pages (quote: "a list of all articles tagged with {{WPBiography}} as of 18 December 2007... (455 966 articles)"; examples: 4, 4b, 46) seem to have no purpose, but occasionally act as a drain on volunteer time in disambiguating links. They have not been substantially edited since 2009 and the parent project is long defunct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - In looking this over, it is not entirely clear whether this list ever had much of a purpose. If it were complete, it would be a list of 1.6 million biographies (out of 5.9 million articles) (not all of which are BLPs). In any case, if it has any use, that use would be only historical, but this is too spotty and long and clumsy a list to have historical value. Send it to the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure why this couldn't have been blanked as an archiving method for all old useless things. Presumably it had transient value at the time. There don't appear to be any important incoming links, so it should be safe to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:GujaratEdit

Portal:Gujarat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Narrow topic, low-readership portal on the Indian state of Gujarat, with insufficient high-quality articles to make a viable portal. Abandoned from 2006 to 2018, when it was rebuilt without the wretched content-forked sub-pages (yay!). However, even after the rebuild, the selection is still too small and of poor quality. Lack of high-quality content and inactive WikiProject make improvement highly unlikely. The image gallery is just a clone-job.

Created [37] in September 2006‎ by Aksi great (talk · contribs), who made only 4 further edits to the portal after that month, the last in Jan 2007 (see Aksi great's portal-space contribs). The portal then had no rotation of topics, and relied on manual updates of Portal:Gujarat/Selected article, but the last of those was in October 2006‎. [38]

The portal remained stagnant, displaying the same static content for nearly 12 years. In late May 2018, Nizil Shah (talk · contribs) made a series of major edits [39], which converted the portal to a more modern format which automatically transcludes lead excerpts using {{Transclude random excerpt}}.

However, the selection is small and of poor quality. There are only 16 articles in all, under two headings:

Geography
  1. Ahmedabad — GA
  2. Sun temple, Modhera — C-class
  3. Bhuj — C-class
  4. Surat — C-class
  5. Rajkot — B-class
  6. Mehsana — start-class
  7. Champaner — start-class
  8. Junagadh — C-class
Biography
  1. Mahatma Gandhi — GA-class
  2. Vallabhbhai Patel — B-class
  3. Raghuveer Chaudhary — start-class
  4. Narmad — C-class
  5. Hemchandra — start-class
  6. Vallabhbhai Patel — B-class
  7. Narayan Desai — start-class
  8. Vanraj Chavda — C-class

That set of 16 articles is obviously better than the previous single article, but it still falls below the WP:POG minimum of 20. (Yes, I do know that after 6 months of specifying a bare minimum of twenty, POG was reverted to an earlier version which makes that a fuzzy target. But I hope that unlike the reverter, editors will exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and recognise that even 20 articles is a woefully small set to provide a decent sample of any non-trivial topic, and that a mere 16 is a waste of time. It's the size of a small navbox, and doesn't justify luring readers to a standalone page)

WP:POG#Article_selection requires that articles be "high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively". But here we have no FAs, only 2 GAs, and 5 of the 16 are start-class.

That sort of result was kinda inevitable, because there isn't much to choose from. Category:WikiProject Gujarat articles lists only 3389 articles, and the table at Category:Gujarat articles by quality shows that few are high-quality. There's only one FA-class, 11 GA-Class, and one A-class. Even going down to B-class adds only 32 articles. That's too small a set to allow a list to achieve a reasonable balance of topics.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal".This fails on at least three of the four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Gujarat has a 2011 population of 60 million, so it's not a tiny place. However, as above en.wp coverage is thin, with only 12 GA/FA articles. The set here is too small to present a balanced set of topics without using much lower-grade articles, and making severe compromises on quality.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 12 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. See above. It's unclear whether Nizil Shah's 2018 work was a one-off, or whether they intend to be a regular maintainer of the portal. But even if they are, Nizil Shah is the only maintainer to appear in 13 years, and POG requires multiple maintainers.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Gujarat appears inactive, so I have just tagged it as inactive,[40]. The project shows zero interest in the portal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gujarat has never been archived, and contains zero mentions of Portal:Gujarat.

I am sure that Nizil Shah's 2018 efforts were a diligent, good faith attempt to rescue a derelict portal. However, no amount of good faith or diligence applied to the portal can rescue the portal from the underlying problems that this is too narrow a topic, with too few quality articles to fill a portal, and to few interested editors to sustain it. It's time to just delete it. Since the problems are structural, I also oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

delete. I agree with your assessment and logic. I had tried to rescue it in 2018 when portal deletion discussion resulted in new templates and tools to make it somewhat easy to maintain. There are very few active editors from Gujarat and are not organised enough to maintain it. So better delete it. I don't oppose re-creation because if in future there are enough editors to maintain it, it should be recreated. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Nizil. I'm glad that my analysis didn't come across as criticism of you. I tried to avoid that, but was unsure if I'd got it right.
It is theoretically possible that there might be some future influx of editors who will expand en.wps's limited high-quality coverage of Gujarat to a point where there is enough to make a portal becomes viable, and that some of those editors will want to help maintain the portal. But the chances look very remote, I'd prefer to say no re-creation, and leave anyone who wants to re-create it to open a DRV at which they can present the new evidence of circumstances having changed. Otherwise we risk having a lone enthusiast re-create the portal, which won't end well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I understood your point. :) I oppose re-creation until some discussion is held to recreate it with enough people to handle it. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a meaningless time suck that lures readers to a structurally deficient Bonsai portal that suffered an over decade long abandonment, and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Gujarat is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or multiple maintainers, and the portal has fundamental structural deficiencies. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Haryana 9 2469 0.36% Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Assam 10 2679 0.37% Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Bihar 10 2935 0.34% Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Gujarat 12 3471 0.35% Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
West Bengal 14 3531 0.40% Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 26 A tangled forest of subpages. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
India 145 30677 0.47% Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Jan19-Feb19 FALSE Country
GujaratEdit
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Conversion of articles from content-forked subpages to transclusion is an improvement that reduces the need for maintenance but does not eliminate it, and there is no maintenance of too few articles that are read too little. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this portal is worthless.Catfurball (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with thanks to Nizil for their efforts, which I think help model how to put together a good portal, while also modeling the inevitable consequences if the portal topic is not broad enough. It seems akin to trying to write an article on a non-notable topic. Levivich 05:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User:EmonyRanger/sandboxEdit

User:EmonyRanger/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Old polemic about the article on Lena Dunham from a long-gone user. Wikipedia userspace isn't for ranting about not getting your way with an article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC. Not purpose of user space. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ranting about not getting your way with an article should be strictly limited to talkspace. Levivich 05:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. User space is not for ranting about old article disputes. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AssamEdit

Portal:Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned portal on the Indian state of Assam, a topic where en.wp has very poor coverage.

This portal has very low readership (only 10 views per day). Created in 2013, then abandoned apart from the creation of a further sub-page in 2016 and the usual 2018 layout tweaking to the main page. The total number of sub-topics is only 12, little over half the WP:POG minimum of 20. (Yes, I do know that after 6 months of specifying a bare minimum of twenty, POG was reverted to an earlier version which makes that a fuzzy target. But I hope that unlike the reverter, editors will exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and recognise that even 20 articles is a woefully small set to provide a decent sample of any non-trivial topic, and that a mere 12 is a risible waste of time.) There is a set of 15 fake DYKs, and a very poor 3-year old news page.

This portal was created [41] on 14 November 2013 by Parikhit phukan (talk · contribs), whose last edit to the portal was in November 2016 (see 's Parikhit phukan portal-space contribs). Parikhit phukan has made no edits to Wikipedia since January 2017.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Assam shows a modest set of sub-pages:

  • Selected article/1, /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /10, and /11 were all created in 2013. /12 was added in 2016. Since creation there has been technical edit to /3 and a grammar fix to /8, but the other ten are entirely unchanged,
  • /Did you know/1 and /Did you know/2 were both created in 2013. Some of their contents were later split out into /Did you know/3, /Did you know/4, and /Did you know/5 by Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs), who added no new items. I checked a sample of five of the fifteen entries, and found none which had any evident conection to WP:DYK. 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 a six-year-old list of genuine DYKs loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section. In this case, we have fake DYKs, factoids which have never been part of the WP:DYK process, where text and sources are carefully scrutinised. They are just random factoids which usurp the good name of WP:DYK to create a WP:TRIVIA section.
  • Portal:Assam/In the news, contains two items, both added in 2016. The first item is dated and linked, and the second is neither, but appears to be a sub-point of the first. The topic is 2016 Indian banknote demonetisation, which has no special relevance to Assam (it belongs in an all-India newspage) ... and in any case, it's a 3-year story presented as "news".

This neglect is presumably why the portal was "restarted" [42] in Jan 2019 by @The Transhumanist (TTH). This "restart" converted the portal into an automated clone tool, which drew its all its selected articles from the navbox Template:Assam, and made the portal just a bloated version of the navbox, just like the navbox-clone portalspam which was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two). So in April 2019, @UnitedStatesian wisely reverted [43] the portal to a pre-automated version. That restored the portal to its abandoned state, from which it has not been rescued.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on at least three of the four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. Assam has a land area slightly only less than the island of Ireland, but a 2011 population of 31 million. However, en.wp coverage is thin: Category:WikiProject Assam articles contains only 1767 articles, and the table at Category:Assam articles by quality shows that only 1 of those articles is of GA or FA class. WP:POG#Article_selection requires that articles by "high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively" ... but even if the 14 B-class articles are used, the set here is still too small to present a balanced set of topics without severe compromises on quality.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 10 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. See above.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Assam has been tagged as inactive since 2015, [44] and shows zero interest in the portal. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Assam has never been archived, and contains zero mentions of "Portal:Assam".

After all these years of abandonment, it's time to just delete this portal. Given lack of suitable articles, the scarcity of readers, the departure of the creator, the complete lack of interest from other editors, and the lack of suitable content, it fails all the key criteria for a portal, so I also oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over five year long abandoned Bonsai portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over five years of hard evidence shows Assam is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Haryana 9 2469 0.36% Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Assam 10 2679 0.37% Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Bihar 10 2935 0.34% Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Gujarat 12 3471 0.35% Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
West Bengal 14 3531 0.40% Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 26 A tangled forest of subpages. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
India 145 30677 0.47% Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Jan19-Feb19 FALSE Country
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG - Very low readership, not enough articles, no maintenance of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this worthless junk portal.Catfurball (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BiharEdit

Portal:Bihar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned portal on the Indian state of Bihar, with very low readership. Created in 2008, then abandoned after the addition of 14 sub-topics in 2011, apart from the usual 2018 layout tweaking to the main page. WP has poor coverage of the topic area.

The portal has some glaring errors, such as /Selected biography/12, which says that Nikhil Kumar "is the current Governor of Kerala", even though he left office in 2014. The news page serves up 7-year-old news under today's date. The "Did You know" is all fake.

This portal was created [45] on 8 October 2008‎ by Devesh.bhatta (talk · contribs), whose last edit to the portal was only 5 hours later. (See Devesh.bhatta's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Devesh.bhatta did not follow that guidance.

Whatever Devesh.bhatta's reasons for so rapidly abandoning their creation with only one picture, one biog, and one article, portals need maintenance. Portal:Bihar had some limited maintenance in the first few years, then one round of expansion in 2011 (mostly by Maverick.Mohit (talk · contribs)), but no maintenance thereafter.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Bihar shows a modest set of sub-pages:

  • /Selected articles/1, created in 2008, with five edits thereafter, the last in 2011.
    /Selected articles/2, untouched since its creation in 2011 by Maverick.Mohit (talk · contribs).
  • /Selected biography/1, created in 2008, with about ten edits until 2011. Then only one dab, in 2019.
    /2, /3, /4, /5, /6, /7, /8, /9, /10, /11, /12, /13, and /14 were all crated in 2011. Most them have had a few edits since then for disambiguation etc, but the only substantive edit to any of them is a 2013 update [46] to /12. The info added in that update became outdated a year later, and has been wrong for the last five years. If any editor had wanted to maintain the portal, they could have viewed the excerpts for all 14 biog pages at Portal:Bihar/Selected biography.
  • Portal:Bihar/News is headed "Today is September 16, 2019", and then lists 7 news items prefixed by month and day, but no year. So the reader would reasonably assume that they link to the current year ... but no, they are from 2012 and 2011.
  • Portal:Bihar/Did you know has since 2016 contained 5 items, after 4 were removed in 2016. [47] None of the items ever displayed on this page has ever been part of the WP:DYK process, where text and sources are carefully scrutinised. They are just random factoids which usurp the good name of WP:DYK to mislead readers about the provenance of the entries, and to create a WP:TRIVIA section, and they are now all quite old and possibly outdated.

This neglect is presumably why the portal was "restarted" [48] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH). This "restart" converted the portal into an automated clone tool, which drew its all its selected articles from the navbox Template:Bihar, and made the portal just a bloated version of the navbox, just like the navbox-clone portalspam which was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two). So in May 2019 I (BHG) reverted [49] the portal to a pre-automated version.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on at least three of the four counts:

  1.  ?? Broad topic. Bihar is the 12th-largest state in India, with a land area slightly bigger than the island of Ireland, but a 2011 population of over 100 million. However, en.wp coverage is thin: Category:WikiProject Bihar articles contains only 2578 articles, and the table at Category:Bihar articles by quality shows that only 8 of those articles are of GA or FA class. WP:POG#Article_selection requires that articles by "high quality, either a featured article, a good article or one which deals with its subject substantially or comprehensively" ... but the set here is too small to present a balanced set of topics without severe compromises on quality.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 10 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. See above.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Bihar is at best semi-active, and has never shown any interest in the portal. A search of its archives for "Portal:Bihar" gives zero hits.

After all these years of abandonment, it's time to just delete this portal. Given the scarcity of readers, the complete lack of interest from maintainers, and the lack of suitable content, I also oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a pointless time suck that lures readers to an eight year long abandoned Bonsai portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over eight years of hard evidence shows Bihar is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Haryana 9 2469 0.36% Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Assam 10 2679 0.37% Originated 2013. Originator last edited portal in 2016, inactive since 2017. Very little maintenance since 2013. 12 Article 7 has had markup error since 2013. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Bihar 10 2935 0.34% Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Gujarat 12 3471 0.35% Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
West Bengal 14 3531 0.40% Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. 26 A tangled forest of subpages. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
India 145 30677 0.47% Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Jan19-Feb19 FALSE Country
BiharEdit
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Very low readership, too few articles, no maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete thsi worthless junk portal.Catfurball (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16, 2019Edit

Portal:HaryanaEdit

Portal:Haryana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Mini-portal on the Indian state of Haryana, with very low readership. Abandoned since 2012 apart from the usual 2018 layout tweaking to the main page. Poor WP coverage of the topic area.

This portal was created [50] on 24 June 2012‎ by Vishal14k (talk · contribs), whose last edit to the portal was only 11 days later, on 5 July 2012. (see Vishal14k's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create", but Vishal14k did not follow that guidance.

Whatever Vishal14k's reasons for abandoning their creation, portals need maintenance, and this one has not had any.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Haryana shows a modest set of sub-pages:

  • 6 selected articles. /Selected article/1, /2, /3, /4, /5, all unchanged since their 2012 creation by Vishal14k. /Selected article/6 is unchanged apart from an image swap in 2012.
  • 6 selected biogs, all BLPs. Selected biography/1, /2, /3, /4, all unchanged since their 2012 creation by Vishal14k, apart from a bot removing an image from /3.
    Selected biography/5 and /6 are both about the same living person (Arvind Kejriwal). Both have been edited to display a date of birth different from that in the article.
  • In the news, displaying two news stories from 2012, without noting that they are from 2012. Readers have to follow the links to learn that the "news" is 7 years old.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal". This fails on at least three of the four counts:

  1.  N Broad topic. No. Haryana is a newish state (created in 1966), but obviously the area's documented history long predates that. However, Category:WikiProject Haryana articles contains only 1089 articles, with only 3 GAs and no FAs. Only 41 articles are C-class or higher.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 9 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. The content has been abandoned since 2012.
  4.  N WikiProject involvement. No. WP:WikiProject Haryana appears to be very active, but a search of its talk archives from "Portal:Haryana" brings up only Vishal14k's 2012 announcement of the portal's creation.

After 7 years of abandonment, it's time to just delete this portal. Given the scarcity of readers, the complete lack of interest from maintainers, and the lack of suitable content, I also oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:India), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Low readership at 9 daily pageviews, not enough articles (12), no maintenance on articles since 2013. Re-creation does not seem useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a pointless time suck that lures readers to an over seven-year-long abandoned micro-portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over seven long years of hard evidence shows Haryana is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indian PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Haryana 9 2469 0.36% Originated 2012. Originator last edited 2018. No maintenance after 2013. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Bihar 10 2935 0.34% Originated 2008. Abandoned by originator, who last edited 2015. No substantive maintenance since 2013. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
Gujarat 12 3471 0.35% Originated in 2006 and abandoned. Originator inactive since 2011. Articles are listed in-line rather than forked. 16 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
West Bengal 14 3531 0.40% Originated 2006, updated until 2008 by editor who edits occasionally. Some articles have been converted to transclusion but others have not; maintenance is spotty. A tangled forest of subpages. 26 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE State
India 145 30677 0.47% Very many subpages, some of which are marked historical. Difficult to determine when last maintained. 94 Jan-Feb19 views were 150/32278 Jan19-Feb19 FALSE Country
  • Delete this worthless junk portal.Catfurball (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the record, there are also only seven B-class articles at the moment. That's a pretty slim chance at reasonable recreation as well. ToThAc (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Early modern BritainEdit

Portal:Early modern Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Mini-portal with very low readership, on the the topic of Early modern Britain, i.e. the island of Great Britain from about 1500 to about 1800.

Created as Portal:Early Modern Britain, and moved [51] in 2016 to its current title Portal:Early modern Britain.

It has been abandoned (or at least severely neglected) since 2008 with very low readership. Only 5 selected articles + 6 selected biog = 11 articles, which is barely half the WP:POG minimum of 20. (Yes, I do know that after 6 months of specifying a bare minimum of twenty, POG was reverted to an earlier version which makes that a fuzzy target. But I hope that unlike the reverter, editors will exercise WP:COMMONSENSE and recognise that even 20 articles is a woefully small set to provide a decent sample of any non-trivial topic, and that a mere 11 is a risible waste of time.)

This portal was created [52] on 16 August 2008‎ by Kaly99 (talk · contribs), who also created the sub-pages. However, their last edit [53] to any part of the portal was a few hours less than a fortight later, on 30 August 2008 (see their portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create." I will AGF that despite being the creator of another portal (Portal:Medieval Britain) and editor of many others, Kaly99 somehow managed to remain unaware of that prominent guidance.

Whatever the reasons for the creator's rapid abandonment, portals need ongoing maintenance, and this one hasn't had it. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Early modern Britain shows a modest set of sub-pages:

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal" This fails on three of those four counts:

  1.  Y Broad topic. Yes. This was a highly eventful period in the history of Britain: the tumult of the Reformation in the 16th century, revolutions and civil war in the 17th century, and in the 18th century the Union with Scotland, the development of empire and birth of the industrial revolution. A lot of this is well-documented on Wikipedia.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of only 6 views per day is trivially low. It's barely above background noise.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. See above: everything abandoned when the creator moved on after only a fortnight .. eleven years ago.
  4.  N WikiProject. No. Neither Talk:Early modern Britain nor Portal talk:Early modern Britain are tagged with the banner of any subject WikiProject. I can find no link to the portal from any Wikipedia talk pages, neither to "Portal:Early Modern Britain" nor to "Portal:Early modern Britain".

In theory, this is a broad enough topic to sustain a portal. But in practice, we have over a decade of nobody even building a half-way useful portal on the topic, let alone maintaining it. A mere 11 articles in all is a risibly tiny selection, far too small to give a meaningful overview of the era. Readers will be much better by being directed to the under-developed head article Early modern Britain than to this debris of a hit-and-run job. And editors would do much better to expand that article from its C-class state to the FA status which the topic deserves.

After 11 years of uselessness, it's time to just delete it. And given the total lack of interest, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:United Kingdom), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl - The portal daily pageview rate of 6 is no better than the noise level observed by BHG for an arcane measure. The head article has 165 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, which is normally not enough interest in the topic to support a portal, but most of those interested in the topic (which is the topic of British history) follow the English Wikipedia's very extensive selection of articles about British history (one of the English Wikipedia's strongest areas). No maintenance since 2010 except a move to comply with capitalization standards. In view of the lack of support for and interest in this portal (perhaps because the articles are good), there is no reason to consider re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to an over decade-long abandoned micro-portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as over eleven years of hard evidence shows Early modern Britain is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:DjiboutiEdit

Portal:Djibouti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Narrow topic, Long-abandoned with low readership, recently given a very poorly-judged drive-by makeover by a portal fan, but with no identified maintainer, and no active WikiProject to support it.

Djibouti is the smallest country in Africa by population, with only 884,000 people. Its smallness plus its underdeveloped status combine with Wikipedia's well-documented systemic bias against Africa to leave Wikipedia with very thin and poor coverage of Djibouti. Category:WikiProject Djibouti articles has a total of only 441 articles, and Category:Djibouti articles by quality shows a very small set of decent-quality articles: 0 FA-class, 13 GA-class (10 of them about the Olympics/Paralympics), 11 B-class and 14 C-class. That's a grossly inadequate set from which to build a portal.

  FA   A   GA   B   C   Start   Stub   FL   List   Category   Disambig   File   Portal   Project   Template   NA   ??? Total
0013111413219103458503124714351,082
WikiProject Djibouti  articles by quality     Refresh

The portal also has abysmally low readership. The Jan–Jun 2019 daily average of 9 views per day is only a small decline from the 2015–2019 average of 10 views per day. By contrast, the C-class head article Djibouti has averaged a fairly steady 2,685 daily pageviews since 2015. That is 256 times as many views as the portal.

WP:POG guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." That is not the case here: I just tagged [54] WP:WikiProject Djibouti as inactive, because its talk page consists overwhelmingly of announcements from outside the project, and AFAICS it has never hosted an actual discussion (i.e where one editor replied to another). I examined the portal's talk page for signs of any interest in the portal, and found only one mention of the portal: a May 2019 post asking if the members of the WikiProject are interested in "un-abandoning" it. There was no reply.

This portal was created [55] on 10 March 2010 by Belovedfreak (talk · contribs), a prolific creator of subsequently-abandoned portals. (They created Portal:Chad, Portal:Togo, Portal:Burkina Faso, Portal:Gabon, Portal:Mauritius, Portal:Niger, and recreated after deletion Portal:Sudan and Portal:Botswana). Belovedfreak's last edit to this portal was on 23 March 2010, only 13 days after creating it. (See Belovedfreak's portal-space contribs). Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has warned "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... but Belovedfreak seems to have paid no attention to that.

Thereafter, the subpages were abandoned apart from some addition to the DYKs. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Djibouti shows 3 "Featured articles" + 1 "featured biogs" All of them are wholly untouched since Belovedfreak created them in 2010, including Featured biography/1, which is a BLP.

There are also seven "Did you know" pages. The first four were all created by Belovedfreak in 2010, and the last three by @Northamerica1000] (NA1K) in August 2019. However, NA1K's additions date from DYK in 2011, 2012, and 2014. 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 list of 5–9 year old items loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section. (The decision to add items which were already over 5 years old was utterly perverse).

The abysmal state of the portal is presumably why in January 2018 it was "restarted" [56] by @The Transhumanist (TTH, aka the poprtalspammer). This "restart" converted the portal into an automated clone tool, which drew all its selected articles from Template:Djibouti topics, and made the portal just a bloated version of the navbox, just like the navbox-clone portalspam which was deleted in April in two mass deletions of similar portals (one, and two). So in April 2019 NA1K reverted [57] the portal to a pre-automated version.

Back in May, I had identified this portal as a possible MFD candidate, and categorised it in Category:Abandoned country portals. When I visited it again today, I found that it had since been "updated". That was initially encouraging, but on further scrutiny the "update" is very poor.

In a series of edits across on 4 August, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) (aka NA1K) did various tweaks, including

  • removing the stale DYK section (good idea)
  • Removed the "selected biographies" section
  • listed 24 articles for automatic excerpt in a "Selected articles" section

This is a long way from bringing the portal anywhere near an acceptable standard.

There remains a long list of problems:

  1. The topic of Djibouti remains too narrow.
  2. No explanation has been provided anywhere of how the listed articles have been chosen, or what efforts have been made to select a balance of topics by factors such as chronology and POV, and to present a rounded view of Djibouti. Given that the entire exercise of selection and formatting took only a few hours, it would be foolish to AGF that any such scrutiny took place.
  3. The assessed quality of the selected articles is very poor:
  4. The WikiProject remains inactive
  5. In keeping with the drive-by nature of these edits, no notification was made to the WikiProject that its portal had been overhauled. So there's no effort to recruit maintainers.
  6. The portal still has no maintainers. NA1K added themself as a maintainer, [58], but removed themself a fortnight later [59] which is just as well, because the initial assertion had no credibility: NA1K had added themself as maintainer to no less than 42 portals (Afghanistan, Belarus, Belize, Biochemistry, Coffee, Colorado, Companies, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Evolutionary biology, Food, Free and open-source software, The Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Housing, Hungary, Islands, Italy, Kuwait, Liquor, Lithuania, Moldova, Money, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Oman, Ontario, Panama, Physics, São Tomé and Príncipe, Somalia, Supermarkets, Tanks, Vietnam) Their subsequent removal of themself as "maintainer" of all 42 came only after this was repeatedly challenged as implausible.

What we're left with here is that NA1K's "update" is actually just a minor variation of TTH's automation spree: take a random topic in which you have no experience or expertise (or collaborators who possess those attributes), throw together a quick list of very poor quality, remove [60] the Category:Abandoned country portals move on ... leaving behind a portal which is still junk, and because the topic is too narrow it can only be junk .

This is a clear fail of all the key tests in WP:POG:

  1.  N Broad topic. No. See above: small underdeveloped country, with a tiny set of articles.
  2.  N High readership. No. The portal's January–June 2019 daily average of 9 views per day is trivially low.
  3.  N Lots of maintainers. No. Zero maintenance from 2010 to 2019, then a drive-by makeover from a serial driveby editor with a long track record of poor judgement.
  4.  N Associated WikiProject. No. WP:WikiProject Djibouti is inactive.

This portal is a solution in search of problem. The C-class head article Djibouti offers better navigation, better showcasing, and a better image gallery. In short, it does does a much better job of the portal tasks than the portal page does.

We do a great to disservice to our readers by luring them away from Wikipedia's finest quality of article, polished by many editors and monitored by many more, and directing them to a page which consists of a quick paint-job by an enthusiastic but naive stranger to the topic. It's time to end the farce, and just delete it.

Since the problems with this topic are endemic and have persisted for a decade, I oppose re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Africa), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl:
    • The portal had only 9 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019.
    • The year-to-year decline in the viewing is characteristic of most portals and may illustrate that portals are not the wave of the future. The wave of the future in the English Wikipedia appears to be articles; we will very soon have 6 million, and then 7 million, and then 8 million.
    • The lack of coverage of Africa, which is a systemic bias, can be best corrected by developing more articles about Africa, and its culture, history, and geography, rather than diverting attention to portals.
    • Upgrading a poorly viewed portal with 4 articles that were not maintained in nine years to a poorly viewed portal with 24 articles that will not be maintained is an improvement, but still leaves a poorly viewed portal that is being maintained randomly.
    • Any portals that are selected to be kept should be upgraded to use embedded lists of articles, but not every portal with an embedded list of articles should be kept.
    • Sometimes a portal MFD results in discussion about whether the portal may be re-created. This portal has already been re-created, and it is better, but not good enough. So delete it.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the thorough and highly detailed investigation of the portal by the nominator, BrownHairedGirl. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. It's a useless time suck that lures readers to a decade-long abandoned Bonsai portal and damages Wikipedia's hard won reputation for quality. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Djibouti is not a broad enough topic under WP:POG to attract readers or maintainers. This portal is a solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AstrologyEdit

Portal:Astrology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

Fourteen selected articles. Eleven were started in December 2006 through September 2007, two of which were updated in February 2011. [61] [62] Two were created in March 2009 and one in September 2011.

Twenty-four selected signs (most are start class or worse) created in February / March 2009. Almost no subsequent productive edits, though one entry had undetected vandalism for a little over three years. [63] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save for some one-off updates by passing editors. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Alex Shih, who dumped it in Jan. 2007, less then a month after creation, and has made one edit to portal space since 2017. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 35 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Astrology having 2,034 views per day in the same period).
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology is semi-active at best (no human posts in 2019), and the portal's only two mentions on the talk page were a 2006-7 creation announcement/initial work conversation, and a June 2010 lament that the portal's template picture was changed to an occult symbol. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Astrology is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as an unmaintained portal as per nomination by User:Mark Schierbecker. Portal has 35 daily pageviews, which is better than most portals, and has 38 articles, which is better than most portals, but the articles haven't been maintained in a decade. Maintenance is not just a nice-to-have but is essential. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks be removed. I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case I see no suitable alternative portals.
The related portals listed include Portal:Psychology, Portal:Occult, Portal:Astronomy, but each of them seems a poor fit. However, if editors want me to use one or more of these portals, I'd be happy to do so. @Mark Schierbecker, Newshunter12, and Robert McClenon: any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete all backlinks @Robert McClenon @BrownHairedGirl For starters, Portal:Occult is also at MfD (I nominated it four days ago) and it is in rough shape, so there's no point in directing people there however the MfD goes. For millennia, Astrology and Astronomy overlapped as fields (see the Antikythera mechanism), so there is sound reasoning to direct links to Portal:Astronomy. However, modern astronomy long ago diverged from astrology, so I think it's best to just delete these backlinks. Any articles that fit well enough with the astronomy portal are likely already linked to it, so there is no need to blanket add the astrology portal links to a different topic, even if a few might fit. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Mental error on my part. I had already !voted to delete Portal:Occult and didn't make the connection. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:HellenismosEdit

Portal:Hellenismos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned portal. Six selected articles from December 2011, two of which are literally disambiguation pages.

Eleven selected bios, eight of which consisted simply of a single link to an article until December 2011.

Moreover, this portal has nothing to do with Hellenism, which is a modern religion. All entries are about mythology in ancient Greece and Rome, with no attempt made to relate the content to modern religion.

Please check Portal:Hellenism and Portal:Hellenismos for backlinks when this portal is deleted. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep Neutral:    Maybe instead of criticizing a page for not being added to lately, you should add to it. I'm against deleting it. Actually Hellenismos (Hellenism) is both ancient and modern philosophies & religions (that can be seen as an integrated one.) The first usage of the term to describe those aspects, and others, overall in Greek culture, dates to the Hellenistic period in the Classical Age. Some Hellenists say they have traditions that were passed down since ancient times, and other traditions still survive in writing (Hellenic_Polytheistic_Reconstructionism such as Supreme_Council_of_Ethnikoi_Hellenes, and another major such group is Labrys, though without Wikipedia article yet.) Hellenism--both ancient and modern--is important in studies of ancient to modern paganism because it's often used as the first example of what it's about, such as saying some people still worship, for example, Zeus and The Olympians. It's not as popular as Wicca (modern revival of Celtic & Germanic and pan-European witch religion, though some people practice Hellenic Wicca) or maybe (not sure) Asatru (Teutonic/Germanic/Norden paganism) but it is probably the first definitive Western pagan religion and has influenced most the others in the West. Some of the linked pages may have become disambiguation pages later, or perhaps there is more than one entry in each such page that is relevant to the portal, in which case those doesn't matter.
   Furthermore, my original name for it was Portal:Hellenismos, which was intended to be about ancient philosophy & religion continued to the modern day with reconstructionism, as that is how that term is used. I don't know who changed it to religion but that's not all it is. Similarly, Hinduism is correctly known as Sanatana Dharma ('the Eternal Philosophy/Law') and actually consists of six main philosophies and several related religions that can all be seen as part of a bigger religion. What probably happened was someone more focused on emotionalist worship without the more sophisticated philosophies and without knowing much Hellenismos may have altered the portal to make it sound like it's about less than it really is. Portal:Hinduism doesn't say 'religion' in parentheses because every serious person studying it probably knows the fact of its diversity as philosophies and religions. The same is true for Hellenismos, which is the variant of the term most-used by adherents and philosophers today to distinguish it from the ancient movement of Hellenism that denotes it happened during the Hellenistic age in Greek culture widespread beyond Greece. Hopefully this clarification should clear up the intent of the portal. Perhaps what's needed is for people to recognize this and remove the limiting term 'religion' and restore the original term to distinguish it from the ancient cultural movement (which has its own article.)
    I'm leaving the above (not all relevant now,) but additional note: part of the confusion was probably that someone moved the portal when the result of the public vote was to NOT move. I've moved it back for what the vote was. Please research what the changes reflect. The redirect of Hellenismos to 'Hellenism (religion)' saying it's only modern is inaccurate, and if I recall correctly, the transliterated Greek version of the term used to direct to a page on ancient religion.--dchmelik (t|c) 02:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@dchmelik You have been away from portal space (at least editing it) for a long time, so please let me bring you up to speed. A mass portal spammer silently created thousands of automated crud portals that were deleted by massive consensuses at two mass MfD's earlier this year. During that cleanup phase, many experienced editors, who had not participated in portal space before, examined many of the about 1500 pre-existing portals and realized that there were vast numbers of abandoned (often for a decade or more), rotting portals which failed the portal guideline, WP:POG. They began to evaluate them and bring them to MfD. Over 800 portals have now been deleted, such as Portal:Lutherinism, Portal:Eastern Orthodox Church, Portal:United States Navy, Portal:Ottoman Empire, and Portal:Armenia. As I have described below, this portal fails WP:POG on broadness (narrow topic), readership (very few readers), maintainers (none - and it would need a team of regular maintainers to pass), and WikiProject involvement (none). I know it's a bummer to see ones work deleted, but this portal grossly fails the portal guideline and should be deleted. It would be a great help to the clean up effort if you could accept that this portal is not wanted by readers or maintainers, whatever you meant for it to be about, and support deletion. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This portal is far from a narrow topic: look at the disambiguation page Hellenism, which probably didn't used to be one, but the portal is about most/all things on that page. Hellenismos (redirects to Hellenism (religion)) is simply the tranlisterated Greek term that is translated to Hellenism, so it's incorrect for the transliteration to direct to a religion article instead of the disambiguation also about philosophy and culture. The main usage of the Greek term is of continued/[reconstructed]/revived (pagan revivalism could use its own article) philosophy & religion both also as part of the wider culture, since the ancient term. People altered/renamed the portal to remove some of that. Similar to Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) all these aspects are combined (so Hinduism could even be seen as disambiguation with at least three or four main definitions, depending what is included, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have a portal.) You can't change my mind or that of other pagans/Hellenists but even if some such large portals have been deleted, I'd understand why this and others are deleted. I haven't added to it in years because there often isn't any new information on such an ancient topic. It does, however, link to many related WikiProjects--dchmelik (t|c) 03:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@dchmelik We seem to be getting side tracked with what this portal is about, which honestly isn't the important part here. It fails WP:POG's requirement that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." There is a decade of hard evidence that this portal hasn't attracted either, so no guess work is needed. WP:POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal.". Just being linked to WikiProjects is not enough. One actually needs to be substantively involved with maintaining a portal, and none are here. The portal, as it stands today, is all about ancient Greece and only gets 0.48% of the daily views of the in practice head article, Ancient Greece, which has multiple versatile Navboxes for all things related to this topic. What do we need this abandoned portal for? This portal, like nearly all portals, is a failed solution in search of a problem. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
My issue with relevance is that none of the selections are about modern practitioners. This is an anachronism. All selections would be better suited to Portal:Greek mythology. The Hellenism portal currently looks like the cover of an astronomy textbook that has been pasted onto a book about astrology. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
It does link several group of modern practitioners (in topics and news sections.) I don't know if any individual practitioners have articles, but there are other modern aspects that could be added (may not have articles either.) It's clearly not all about ancient Greece, as you could've seen in the original version, and even now with the altered version that only has the introduction redirect to an article about modern Hellenismos rather than past introductions which included ancient to modern... well, maybe even moreso with the current introduction, I mean did you even take a look at the rest of the introduction? In addition, I now see three of the selected articles refer to modern aspects as well, and several of the selected images are modern art, modern photography, or at least later than Classical (maybe in between then and modern.)--dchmelik (t|c) 03:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mark Schierbecker With the portal rename, the portal's MfD link no longer brings you to this MfD, so that needs to be fixed now. @dchmelik Please stop dodging this portal's failure of WP:POG by only focusing on the subject issue. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Clearly I replied to some of what was described with WP:POG. How often would it need to be maintained, or is even a low number of readers now a good enough reason to delete?--dchmelik (t|c) 04:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@dchmelik It would need to be updated on a weekly/monthly basis by a team of dedicated long-term maintainers, preferably with deep topic knowledge, and yes, a low number of viewers is a good enough reason to delete. It also lacks an involved wiki-project. Having large numbers of maintainers and readers are not optional requirements. That must be met or a portal will be deleted. This portal hasn't met that for a decade, and if you care about this topic, than improving related articles would be a far better use of your time because people actually read those. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Alright, it just doesn't have a team (so not wiki-project either) and I don't think I'm involved enough anymore to try to make one--anyway, I only discussed changes to the portal with a few or two people in the past then others made changes without talking to me so I don't know what their intentions are or if they're even that interested. The few/two I talked to might not have made major additions; maybe they mainly wanted to do improvements. I don't want to change my vote, since I dislike the changes since after the portal spammer, but due to that I understand the changes may be necessary. so I could even rescind my vote. However I want to wait for the duration to see if anyone else who ever edited or was interested in the portal comments and might be interested in starting a team anyway. Also, is there any way I could save some past version of the portal before or even after it's possibly/probably deleted, for a copy of what I worked on... either to my own sandbox or just downloading for offline usage?--dchmelik (t|c) 04:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@dchmelik I don't really know anything about transferring data, but nothing is stopping you from copy-pasting any old version of the portal to a file on your computer. It can't just live in your sandbox on Wikipedia if deleted because then it wouldn't really be deleted, just somewhere else. If you want to wait and see if anyone else comes along, that's up to you, but based on my experiences at hundreds of individual MfD's, that's incredibly unlikely to happen and given that the portal has been abandoned for years, the credibility of such a spur of the moment team to stop an MfD would be questionable, as maintenance needs to be long-term. There is still the critical lack of readers problem. Is it possible you could change your vote to neutral for now until if and when more interest comes? As an aside, could you please tell me what this portal offers that articles don't? Newshunter12 (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Most articles on paganism/heathenism (or what's better termed non-Abrahamic philosophies/religions) describe them in an ancient or modern sense only, with separate articles, which is okay for an encyclopedia, but not really how the practitioners think of it and there's some evidence it shouldn't totally be the case for this topic. The main articles on the terms paganism and (though it has been moved, which I agree with) neopaganism maybe refer to each other but the actual usage outside an encylopedia aren't restricted to ancient or modern (except neo is modern, but fewer people use the paleo, meso, neo terminology anymore after the person who came up with it passed away and a lot of people didn't like the implications that their religion was completely destroyed and/or has no history, and they include ancient knowledge in 'neopaganism.') The Wicca article (or at least history one it links to) probably states that there are claims of ancient secretly passed-down traditions of witchcraft paganism. However people outside of Celtic and Germanic paganism don't like the terms 'pagan,' 'heathen' as they were insult terms not reclaimed as they're Germanic/English, not in this case Greek. So I see, there used to be portals on one or more others like Neopaganism, Wicca, Asatru/Heathendom, and it would've been perfectly relevant, if this were still the case, to have one on Hellenismos, as it's usually not Wicca... but it does share a similar aspect with Wicca that people claimed to have secretly passed down traditions. In that sense there's the claim Hellenismos started as what one person defined as paleopaganism but continued unbroken into mesopaganism and neopaganism... so the case is this also takes Hellenismos outside of those categories, and means articles focusing only on the ancient or modern practice are inadequate. Maybe an academic of the topic could say the practitioners can't prove they had secret traditions, but as a large amount of historical knowledge wasn't lost in this case, that doesn't matter to me and many people interested or writing about the subject. One difference is Wicca is a modern rewriting of one or more ancient Anglo-Saxon words like 'wicche,' so though there's evidence some (not all) of the beliefs and practices are ancient or reconstructed or revived, the name isn't as ancient... however with Hellenismos it is. It was an ancient term used by some Hellenistic ruler used to describe culture, which included philosophy and religion. This is the same way some Hindus describe 'Hinduism'--culture which includes philosophy and religion. As this is the case, the current Hellenism disambiguation (Hellenismos used to redirect to, and previously, one or both had articles) lists usage as both ancient religion (in a cultural context which included philosophy) and modern religion so there was nothing wrong with a portal using both such aspects of that term (the only both ancient and modern usage, though past Hellenism(os) edits may have listed both culture and philosophy as ancient and modern versions, but I described, they were or are sometimes seen all as one thing.) However it seems now most the paganism portals, and even most the religion portals are going away unless followed by a larger number of millions of people in the world, which still isn't the case here.--dchmelik (t|c) 05:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@dchmelik I'm sympathetic that you feel Wikipedia's coverage of this topic is inadequate and am saddened that I can't help improve these articles as I know nothing about those religious/philosophical groups and have no passion for the topic, but as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS states, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to right wrongs you feel are happening in the world. We only follow what WP:RS's say. Given the identity crises this portal already has, it's clearly a failed solution to the problem you would like righted. I'm honestly not understanding why you want this portal kept other then you personally like the idea of a great portal on this topic, but this just isn't it. Portals don't have their own content, so unless the articles change to your liking, this portal can never be what you want it to be, and even if the articles someday get to the type of coverage you approve of, then this portal would still be worthless because virtually no one reads it. Realistically, your best bet is to eliminate this portal and focus your limited time and energy on improving the articles to where you would like them to be. Realistically and sadly, this portal is just wasting the time of everyone involved and will never get to where you dream it could be, as has happened to thousands of other portals in the last 15 years. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for nearly eight years, save portal renaming and one-off updates by passing editors. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Dchmelik, who edited it in sporadic bursts over the years (with year(s) long gaps in between), the last of which was in Feb. 2017 (I see the MfD drew them back as I was typing this), and currently has a self-professed prolonged come and go relationship with Wikipedia. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over nine years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 17 views per day from January 1 - June 30 2019 (despite the real head article, which seems to be Ancient Greece, having 3,526 views per day in the same period). This is a steady long term decline from 35 views per day from July 1 - Dec. 30 2015.
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome is active, the portal is not mentioned on the main page, and the portal has never been mentioned on the talk page. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Hellenism (really Ancient Greece) is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As I described, the portal was later altered by people who don't fully understand that the topic is not only religion, but culture & philosophy & religion (similar to Hinduism which combines all three, well actually several/many philosophies and three entire categories each including several/many religions that some see as unified.) This is why maybe neither the deletion nominator nor the person who voted understand the notability. I described it above. The original portal described these aspects and linked to pages on ancient & reconstructed/revived religion, and Hellenism (which Hellenismos should be redirected to) that describes/lists these aspects. One of you thinks it's only modern; the other of you think it's is really actually ancient... you're both partly correct and partly wrong, and disagree with each other, so I think neither of you know the notability. However I see that notability may not be the issue after the portal spammers.

     If the vote is to delete, I won't recreate it, but I don't think you should ban people interested in the topic from recreating it if they're going to maintain it.--dchmelik (t|c) 03:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@dchmelik I oppose re-creation because a decade of hard evidence shows that is not going to happen or this portal wouldn't be in the state that it is. Portals in general have been an abysmal failure by any sane measure, as the facts show. They also don't have their own content (only articles have content), so nothing is being lost by deleting this abandoned portal. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - After I reviewed this nomination, I was not entirely sure about the subject matter of the portal and was going to wait and study it further, and then the issue was complicated by moving. Now that both the portal and the MFD have been renamed to the name that is consistent with the RM, I have reviewed it further. It wasn't clear whether this was about the historical Greek religion, or about the Neopagan religion. (That would have been a reason to vote !Delete if not resolved. We don't need portals whose subject matter is uncertain.) It is about the Neopagan religion, which is a revival of the historical religion, but most of the content is about the historical religion that is being revived. (An argument between User:dchmelik and User:Newshunter12 doesn't change anything, and I agree with what NH12 says anyway.) (There are often questions about how accurately neopagan religions have revived the historical polytheistic religions, but the historical Greek religion is probably the best documented of all ancient religions.) It has two main problems, low readership and no maintenance. It has 15 average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, as opposed to 392 for the head article (which is usually not enough to support a portal). There are 18 articles, which have not been maintained since 2010 except for moving. It isn't clear what dchmelik wants to save, since portal subpages should not contain unique content if they were forked from articles. I see little reason to try to re-create a portal that failed to gain 20 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk portal forever.Catfurball (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Greece + Portal:Religion), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 15, 2019Edit

Portal:AtheismEdit

Portal:Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Six selected articles in rotation. One was created in April 2010, two were created in March 2009, three were created in June 2007 and updated in January 2009. Portal:Atheism/Selected article/4 was updated in March 2010 with an article that relates only marginally to atheism.

Of the bios in rotation, 11 were created in June / July 2007 and one was created in April 2010. Three of the former were updated in January 2009. The later was updated in May 2011 because Robert B. Spencer was, at the time, not an atheist but a Catholic. The bio for Christopher Hitchens was updated in December 2011 with his death. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save for some one-off updates by passing editors. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by GeorgeTopouria, who dumped it less then an hour after creating it in May 2007, save three stray edits in July 2007, which were their last in portal space. They last touched main space in 2011. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 27 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Atheism having 2,262 views per day in the same period).
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism is labled semi-active (the last editor to editor conversation was in Sep. 2017) and the only two mentions of the portal on the talk page were a passing mention in June 2010 in a conversation about color use in templates, and a passing mention in a lengthy May 2011 conversation about if pink unicorn images in user-boxes were offensive to theists and what to do about it. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Atheism is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Selected Religion and Philosophy PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Freemasonry 14 9075 0.15% Originated 2009 by sporadic editor, edited most recently Jan2019. Only 6 articles, not changed since 2010 with only minor tweaks, none since 2013. 6 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Jainism 26 3736 0.70% Originator edits sporadically, last in June 2019. Articles are from 2012 and 2016, only cosmetic edits since then. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Atheism 27 2662 1.01% Originator inactive since 2013. Articles selected in 2007, very little maintenance since 2010. 95 At least two articles have been blanked. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Anglicanism 32 1806 1.77% Originated 2007 by editor who last edited 2010. 40 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Greek mythology 35 3681 0.95% Originated 2010; originator edits sporadically, last in Apr 2019. 35 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Buddhism 51 7928 0.64% Originator edits sporadically, last in June19. Articles created in 2009, only drive-by edits since then. 26 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Religion 78 2884 2.70% Originator inactive since 2011. Has 85 articles and complete calendar, but no sign of maintenance since 2009. Jan-Feb19 views were 79, 2899. 85 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Philosophy 133 5339 2.49% Originated 2006. Originator inactive since 2012. 72 Portal improved Sep 2019 by Northamerica1000. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
AtheismEdit
  • Weak Delete as an unmaintained portal, although the viewing is better than for many portals, and although there appear to be many articles even after taking into account that some of them have been blanked for some reason. Neutral as to the possibility of re-creating this portal with a design that does not use content-forked subpages and with a maintenance plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries.
However, I am unsure what alternative portal, if any, should be used. It seems to me that the options are Portal:Religion and/or Portal:Philosophy. I think that the religion is to poor a fit, so my inclination is to use only Portal:Philosophy as the least worst option. @Mark Schierbecker, Newshunter12, and Robert McClenon: any thoughts on that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert, my experience is that atheists don't like atheism being called a religion, so I am wary of unintentionally causing offence. I agree about the toss-up between P:Philosophy and deletion.
Delete all backlinks @Robert McClenon @BrownHairedGirl I agree that in practical terms, atheism can often be its own religion (some atheists gather in groups with hair dryers to de-baptize each other), but on the other hand, adherents are most likely to see it as just reality, not a philosophy, so I say just delete the backlinks. It's not our job to forcibly categorize the nature of all things. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The fact that atheists don't like having it called a religion is not important to me. We don't need to worry too much about a political correctness that one must never offend people who are easily offended. I think that we can use common sense on what is and is not offense. They are also likely to be offended at having their portal deleted, but rules are rules and common sense is common sense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've surveyed the back links (there are only 156 that are not transclusions) and it appears most articles fall under the Religion portal, and some fall under both Philosophy and Religion (Daniel Dennett, Friedrich Nietzsche). Most of the back links are articles about people or organizations that are critical of religion. Many atheists are themselves religious, such as atheistic Buddhists, but that is besides the point. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Greek mythologyEdit

Portal:Greek mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Stillborn portal. Four selected articles, 14 selected deities, six selected heroes, eight selected creatures, none of which have been updated since April 2010. DYK written in in-universe style. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over nine years since creation. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Belovedfreak, who dumped it in April 2010, less then two weeks after creation, and left portal space in April 2011. They also created numerus other portals that were later abandoned: Portal:Burkina Faso, Portal:Gabon, Portal:Mauritius, Portal:Niger, Portal:Togo, and recreated after deletion Portal:Sudan and Portal:Botswana. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had over nine years of no maintainers and it had a low 35 views per day from January 1 - June 30 2019 (despite the head article Greek mythology having 3,681 views per day in the same period). This is a steady long term decline from 55 views per day from July 1 - Dec. 30 2015.
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology is labeled semi-active, the portal is not mentioned by name on the main page, and as far as I can tell the portal has never been mentioned on the talk page and no one responded to an August "Call for portal maintainers" for Portal:Mythology. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Greek mythology is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Myths + Portal:Ancient Greece), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Selected Religion and Philosophy PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Freemasonry 14 9075 0.15% Originated 2009 by sporadic editor, edited most recently Jan2019. Only 6 articles, not changed since 2010 with only minor tweaks, none since 2013. 6 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Jainism 26 3736 0.70% Originator edits sporadically, last in June 2019. Articles are from 2012 and 2016, only cosmetic edits since then. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Atheism 27 2662 1.01% Originator inactive since 2013. Articles selected in 2007, very little maintenance since 2010. 95 At least two articles have been blanked. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Anglicanism 32 1806 1.77% Originated 2007 by editor who last edited 2010. 40 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Greek mythology 35 3681 0.95% Originated 2010; originator edits sporadically, last in Apr 2019. 35 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Buddhism 51 7928 0.64% Originator edits sporadically, last in June19. Articles created in 2009, only drive-by edits since then. 26 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Religion 78 2884 2.70% Originator inactive since 2011. Has 85 articles and complete calendar, but no sign of maintenance since 2009. Jan-Feb19 views were 79, 2899. 85 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Philosophy 133 5339 2.49% Originated 2006. Originator inactive since 2012. 72 Portal improved Sep 2019 by Northamerica1000. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Greek MythologyEdit
  • Weak Delete as an unmaintained portal that is well-viewed and reasonably broad in coverage, without prejudice to re-creation with a maintenance plan (with at least two maintainers) and a design that does not use content-forked subpages. (In-universe DYKs are in this content in my opinion harmless although silly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


Portal:ChristmasEdit

Portal:Christmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Nineteen selected articles. There have only been two updates to these since September 2009: [64], [65] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for a decade, save for some one-off updates by passing editors, and picture 3 was deleted from commons in 2012, yet the sub-page has not been updated. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Juliancolton, who dumped it in Dec. 2009, a few months after creation, and has made one edit to portal space in the last five years. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 16 views per day from June 1 to August 30 2019 (despite the head article Christmas having 1,879 views per day in the same period).
  • POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but both Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays and its Christmas task force are inactive, the portal's only mention on each talk page was the same brief Sep. 2009 request by the portal's creator for a Peer Review of their new creation and it's only listed on the main page of the task force. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Christmas is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question about backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, what do we do about the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries. in this case I think that Portal:Christianity would be the best fit. Is that OK?. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl Yes, that is fine. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Both the article and the portal in the twelve month period from Jul18 to Jun19 show a great deal of seasonal variation in the viewing. The variation of the article is what one would expect, with a high of 187,261 pageviews on 25 Dec 2018; the median is 2541 and the mean is 6898. The portal is a little less obvious. While viewing of the portal peaked at 190 views on 24 Dec 2018, it was higher in the first quarter of 2019 than the rest of the twelve-month period, with a daily average of 34. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have no objections to submit, as public opinion has clearly soured on portals in general, and there are perfectly valid arguments about scope and maintenance which may be applicable here. But I'll readily note that the portal deletionists have been nothing been disrespectful and flippant. In each of the discussions concerning the deletion of portals I'd created many years ago, people like Newshunter12 have employed aggressive verbiage to suggest that I'd abandoned them with malicious or negligent intent. No, I didn't "dump" anything – this is a wiki, which traditionally meant that collaboration was necessary to bring projects to fruition. It seems that among new and relatively inexperienced users, that philosophy has sadly been lost. Nonetheless, I won't take it personally, as Newshunter12 evidently uses a boilerplate rationale that attacks all former portal creators indiscriminately. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Juliancolton There was nothing personal about my statement above. The facts are, as your edit history shows, you abandoned this portal in 2009 and you were the one who did not heed the immediate warning stipulated in WP:POG, "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create". Portals are not articles, and generally at best have had one or two creators/maintainers in their entire histories, so that when one or both goes, a rotting portal is left behind. I'm sorry that the facts don't care about your feelings, and that there are so many other portal creators who leave junk around for others to clean up, so that the above quote has to be repeatedly brought out. Facts aren't malicious, just reality, and I'm saddened that it appears you will not be one of the rare portal creators who helps delete the abandoned portal they created, however well intentioned they might have been at the time. I never said you didn't mean well at the time. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Newshunter12: You clearly don't need my help; all but a couple of the portals I'd ever substantially edited have been swiftly deleted in the last couple years. I'm not upset about it, and I don't disagree with the reasons for doing so. It would merely be nice for you and a handful of others (at another one of these discussions, some editor with whom I'd had no prior contact went out of their way to call my portal creations "a joke") to acknowledge that attitudes toward portals have changed drastically in the decade or more since I "dumped" these creations. In 2009, we had a small but thriving community of FPO contributors who would often step in and graciously help flesh out each other's nascent portal skeletons. This is irrespective of whatever WP:POG may say; that was always a crude instructional guide which represented neither site policy nor actual portal-related practices. I'm ever so sorry that your short tenure on Wikipedia has left you yet aloof and pretentious, but I'm sure you mean well, and will come to appreciate Wikipedia's collaborative culture in time. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, nicely done portal that is almost timeless and does not contain major embarassment. Remove or update the calendar, the "things you can do" unless updated (I use a switch on Portal:Germany to hide the news section whenever it becomes too old) and consider updating the "Topics" box. No advantage in deleting this over keeping it. —Kusma (t·c) 21:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Your vote is pure WP:ILIKEIT and should hold no weight. As described above, this portal is an abysmal failure of WP:POG. Furthermore, try this for embarrassment: the picture at Portal:Christmas/Selected picture/3 was deleted from commons in Dec. 2012, yet this sub-page was never updated or removed because this portal has been abandoned for a decade. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as an unmaintained portal, with no criticism of the originator, because no one is required to do anything in Wikipedia, but portals are required to have maintainers. I am sad to cast this !vote because I think that there is something magical about Christmas, and deleting the portal feels a little like Ebenezer Scrooge to the charity collectors, but Christians (and non-Christians) can celebrate the holiday without the need for a portal. A spot-check of the 19 articles shows that they were created in 2009, and that subsequent maintenance has been minor. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BuddhismEdit

Portal:Buddhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Eleven selected articles c. March 2009. Selected article/1, Selected article/2, and Selected article/3 are really from August 2005, and August / May 2008 respectively. All 14 selected bios are from January / March 2009.

Errors
  • Phil Jackson may be a Buddhist, but this is not mentioned explicitly in his article or the portal excerpt.
  • Tina Turner retired in 2009. The portal excerpt does not explain her connection to Buddhism.
  • Foguang Temple was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site in June 2009.
  • Mazie Keiko Hirono has been a senator since 2013. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade. The portal clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of maintainers and readers. This portal has had a decade of no maintainers and it had a low 51 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (despite the head article Buddhism having 7,928 views per day in the same period). This is a significant long-term decline from 80 views per day from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism is active, the portal is not featured prominently on the main page, and was last mentioned on the talk page in July 2011, when it got caught up in a dispute about L. Ron Hubbard (the founder of Scientology) being featured on the portal and listed as part of the Buddhism WikiProject. No one from the project participated in the deletion discussion for Portal:Tibetan Buddhism after being notified. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as a decade of hard evidence shows Buddhism is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, there was never a bio, just this, which was a listing just like you found still on the portal. This is all the more reason this portal should be deleted. Portal space doesn't need to get caught up in any controversies surrounding the Church of Scientology. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the first half of 2019, the portal had an average of 51 daily pageviews, and the article had an average of 7928 daily pageviews. Discrepancies in the articles illustrate an inherent weakness of content-forked subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Religion), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that this inactive portal only points to a much bigger problem, that is, Buddhism is seriously underrepresented on Wikipedia, compared to other religions and philosophies. There just appear to be too little English-speaking Buddhists around. Just compare the article about the Buddha with those of other founders of religion, and you can see the quality is much different. Furthermore, the WikiProject Buddhism has been all but dead for a long time.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Selected Religion and Philosophy PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Freemasonry 14 9075 0.15% Originated 2009 by sporadic editor, edited most recently Jan2019. Only 6 articles, not changed since 2010 with only minor tweaks, none since 2013. 6 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Jainism 26 3736 0.70% Originator edits sporadically, last in June 2019. Articles are from 2012 and 2016, only cosmetic edits since then. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Atheism 27 2662 1.01% Originator inactive since 2013. Articles selected in 2007, very little maintenance since 2010. 95 At least two articles have been blanked. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Anglicanism 32 1806 1.77% Originated 2007 by editor who last edited 2010. 40 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Greek mythology 35 3681 0.95% Originated 2010; originator edits sporadically, last in Apr 2019. 35 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Buddhism 51 7928 0.64% Originator edits sporadically, last in June19. Articles created in 2009, only drive-by edits since then. 26 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Religion 78 2884 2.70% Originator inactive since 2011. Has 85 articles and complete calendar, but no sign of maintenance since 2009. Jan-Feb19 views were 79, 2899. 85 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Philosophy 133 5339 2.49% Originated 2006. Originator inactive since 2012. 72 Portal improved Sep 2019 by Northamerica1000. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
BuddhismEdit
  • Weak Delete as a well-viewed but unmaintained portal with reasonably broad coverage without prejudice against re-creation with a maintenance plan (involving at least two maintainers) and a design that does not involve content-forked subpages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The errors noted by the nominator are an inherent problem with content-forked subpages and are a reason why a better design is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Over 50 daily pageviews and Buddhism is obviously a very broad important topic as one of the four major religions. If this gets deleted then it should be allowed to be recreated with an overhauled version. The problems raised by the MfD starter can be fixed in a few minutes, as has been demonstrated quite a few times now. --Hecato (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - No, the idea, stated by User:Hecato, that the problems identified in this MFD can be fixed in a few minutes is nonsense. Two problems have been identified. Neither of them is a matter of simple factual discrepancies. where one can foolishly think that one has fixed the problem by fixing the error like waving a dead rat. The first problem is the use of content-forked subpages. Redesigning the portal to use an embedded list may be done in less than an hour, but not in a few minutes. The second problem is the lack of maintenance. A maintenance plan is a document, preferably peer-reviewed, that takes a few hours to write, after the maintainers have been identified, and identifying the maintainers will take at least a few days to allow them to respond to the call for volunteers. Of course, past experience is that we can wait for a long time, like waiting for Godot, but I am referring to the best case, in which case they respond within a few days. It doesn't take a few minutes. That statement is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I do not really want to get into an argument here since the outcome of this MfD seems already decided. But I want to at least mention for the record that "A maintenance plan is a document, preferably peer-reviewed, that takes a few hours to write, after the maintainers have been identified, and identifying the maintainers will take at least a few days to allow them to respond to the call for volunteers." are just User:Robert McClenon's personal demands and not based on any guideline or consensus. --Hecato (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Even if there isn't a maintenance plan document, which, as User:Hecato notes, isn't in the portal guidelines, the statement that correcting the errors will take a few minutes is nonsense. Redesigning the portal will still take approximately half an hour. Identifying a maintainer will still take at least a day. There is a method that an enthusiastic unethical maintainer could use to identify a maintainer much more quickly, but it is forbidden. The idea that the problems can be fixed in a few minutes is absurd, and indicates that the advocates of portals write first and either think afterward or don't bother to think. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: So your argument is really that it does not take "a few minutes" to fix, but instead "half an hour"? You are right, half an hour is truly an extraordinary length of time, completely outside of the realm of "a few minutes". I guess I should have called it "several dozen minutes". I stand corrected. --Hecato (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Hecato - No. It takes a few days. As User:BrownHairedGirl points out, the reference to portal maintainers in the portal guidelines is plural. That means that you can't just sit down and resolve that issue in a few minutes or an hour because you need at least two maintainers. So "a few minutes" is absurd. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
So you count looking for another person as a time intensive activity of fixing a portal? If you really want to dig out the literal interpretation of POG: it does not even say a portal needs to have readers or maintainers, just that it needs to be likely to attract them. Go ahead and prove some likelihoods. POG was not written as a deletion guide and demanding more than one dedicated signed-up maintainers for a portal (which almost no portal has or ever had) is just a tactic to justify the on-going mass deletion of the portal space. But like I said, I don't want to get into another pointless argument again, I just responded because I thought you were funny. Go ahead and have the last word. --Hecato (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I am wholly unsurprised to see that @Hecato continues their dogged opposition to the long-standing principle that portals need maintenance, and that they shouldn't be dependant upon one lone editor. This is the same Hecato who only a few weeks ago proposed that all countries should automatically be treated as broad topics which pass POG, so that portal fans could amuse themselves by-creating deleted country portals. Many countries have only a tiny set of high-quality articles, no active WikiProject, and a long history of portal neglect, so the effect would have been to re-create yet more portals whose failure was pretty much guaranteed. It is sad that so many of the defenders of portals are so vastly more interested in quantity than in quality, and to try bizarre wikilawyering arguments such as Hecato's claim above that portals need neither readers nor maintainers. It makes a terrible argument against deletion, but it makes compelling evidence that some portal fans just make portals for their own amusement, rather than to serve readers. After 6 months of portal MFDs, it us very clear that there is now a strong community consensus against the having such useless portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
*Major countries. City states etc. obviously not included. And most people seemed to agree that major countries are broad topics. Nice deflection by the way. The question above was about what POG literally says, not what is established consensus. If you want to wikilayer with the plural usage of "maintainers" then don't get mad if people wikilayer back. Ah I was baited into another response. --Hecato (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Not so, @Hecato. If you want to wikilawyer, then check what you actually wrote, rather than what in hindsight you might have been wiser to write. Here's the diff[66] You used the heading Are major nation portals about "broad subject areas", but the actual question you asked omitted the word "major": "Given the about 20 on-going MfDs about country portals. Can we get a consensus on whether a nation is a broad subject area?"
That phrase "a nation" does not exclude city states, and it does not underdeveloped countries with v poor coverage on en.wp. The list of "about 20 .. country portals" listed at MFD when you made that post was: Niger, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Botswana, Gabon, Rwanda, Albania, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Namibia, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Cape Verde, Bhutan, Maldives, Ottoman Empire. That's the set that spurred you into action.
And yes, of course you got some support there ... because instead of starting an RFC or asking a general audience at the village pump, you asked at a page dominated by portals fans who mostly wanted to keep every last abandoned junk portal, and some of them even shouted "war on portals" when the deletion of TTH's portalspam was proposed. And when I repeatedly suggested that you open an RFC to test broader consensus, you didn't do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Asking for opinions is not the same thing as advocacy of one viewpoint or another. That request for opinions is indeed about all nation portals as a whole, that does not mean I think all nations are inherently broad topics. Figuring out which ones are was part of that request. That topic was started when smaller nation portals (some of which I thought were broad enough) were getting deleted and soon afterwards portals for larger nations and even continents were getting set up for deletion (Asia among them). Appropriate timing if you ask me. Nothing prevents you from creating a wider-scale RFC, you have my full support. --Hecato (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – the table above shows me two things: one, 50 page views per day isn't a lot and pales in comparison to what the article gets. Two, while Portal:Religion might be broad enough of a topic to attract enough readers and maintainers (I'm not sure, I haven't looked at it), individual religions and philosophies do not seem to be broad enough. Given the age of the portal (10 years) and the paucity of content and readership, it seems clear that this portal topic is not broad enough to meet WP:POG. Levivich 06:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Without prejudice to recreation, as Robert McClenon suggests. I think any effort put into portal maintenance would be better spent on actual articles- as noted above, Buddhism is a big topic with thin active editor support. If there is useful work that can be saved via Draft space or something similar for things like the anniversary lists, I would support that. --Spasemunki (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Old businessEdit

September 15, 2019Edit

Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory)Edit

Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Draft with only a single reference. No prose explaining what the topic is or any pathway to being a mainspace article. Was previously nominated for XFD due to it being a math stub with 2 referecnces that was left for 2 years. Was up for discussion because it had been observed as a page that was not making progress in the Draft namespace and was not edited (and therefore subject to CSD:G13). Page creator gave an obvious involved keep and therefore the previous MFD has closed as no-consensus. Page creator has been reminded several times that Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace (1, 2, 3). Page creator has been reminded multiple times on a great many draft pages that Draft space is not an unlimited storage location [67], and yet the behavior still continues. Page creator has been the locus of a great many draft sub-sub-stubs created without any forward progress or plan to remediate on. Extensive discussions have previously been held where it has been observed that the drafts are not useful or productive.

Closing Admin: I know Taku will procedurally object to keep their content under every last possible justification and therefore strongly suggest that any promises/pleas/compromises be given as little weight as possible as the record demonstrates that Taku, at least in these Mathematics sub-stubs in draft space, is not here to further Wikipedia's purpose. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

To the closing Admin, Hasteur has been known to lie and personally attack other editors; they have been warned on multiple occasions. A case in point: the allegation “Taku, ..., is not here to further Wikipedia's purpose.” has been disproved several times. I strongly hope for everyone to see who is trying to develop the content and who is acting on personal vendetta. It is Hasteur that has to find a way to move on; see [68] [69]. — Taku (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Noting the Personal Attack Hasteur has been known to lie which is the author's primary solution to scrutiny being called to their creations. What I said (and that Taku has conveniently left out to further their fringe view) is Taku, at least in these Mathematics sub-stubs in draft space, is not here to further Wikipedia's purpose. The emphasis is mine as the wording and phrasing was specifically chosen to call into question the suitability of these Drafts. Again citing WP:Drafts Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be created and developed, for a limited period of time. Under any generous interpretation of that generally accepted advice, Taku's efforts have well worn out their welcome. If an editor has attention called to their editing deficencies repeatedly and refuses to reform it's not a vendetta or stalking, it's improving Wikipedia by sweeping out the content that is improper for inclusion to begin with. The Interaction Ban that Taku attempted to push through to neutralize his critics (WP:IDHT) so that they may continue the same behavior that others have called attention to. Further administrators (such as Hut 8.5 have suggested that Taku move these pages out of Draft namespace and into their own personal userspace to work on. This move to alternative locations (Taku's Userspace, Wikiproject Mathematics space, Mainspace) have all been rejected by Taku repeatedly and to the point of requiring a formal Topic Ban to prevent further disruption to the central purpose of editing to improve wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The truth is that those so-called short sub-stubs no longer exist, except perhaps this one (many others drafts are much more substantial). Notice how this user chose to ignore my comment just below. Because this truth is inconvenient for them. The truth is that I have a very good track records of finishing the drafts; again the inconvenient truth. The truth is that the community has determined that the drafts have potential to become mainspace articles (not inappropriate for inclusion). It is time for Hasteur to stop painting a picture that is not the reality. — Taku (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It is true that one-sentence-drafts prove to be problematic (to my surprise) but, at this moment, I think there are not many of them; almost all of them have been moved to mainspace or merged with others. Claiming this is still an issue is what I mean by "Hasteur cannot move on". -- Taku (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Drafts are drafts of articles and exist to become articles. If the author has had years to write a real stub article and has not done so, there is no reason to think that he ever will, especially since all that is probably necessary is to summarize the paper. If the author wants to summarize the paper in the next six days, they can mainspace this in the next six days. They have already wasted our time long enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: I strongly object to “think that he ever will”; many draft articles like 80% o 90% of mine) have moved to mainspace and there is no reason to think this draft is an exception. The reason why taking time is because it is not an easy topic to write (“especially since all that is probably necessary is to summarize the paper” is simply untrue; it’s not that simple.) —- Taku (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    The reason that there was no reason to think that it would ever be written is that the paper was null for three years and was deleted for six months, during all of which time you could have written something. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ok. But this observation contradicts the reality, which is that even after years passed since the page is created, many drafts started by me do get finished and moved to mainspace. For example, writing often requires finding a good reference and that can depend on my work or travel schedules, etc. —- Taku (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    I have expanded the draft a bit (though the quality is quite low). —- Taku (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Welcome back to MFD, User:Hasteur. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep(see below): I’m not at liberty to make a comment on how the draft space operates. But, as for the nature of the topic, this is a notable topic as far as Wikipedia is concerned and I don’t see why Wikipedia cannot cover it. —- Taku (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Does the preterition indicate that the subject is under a topic-ban from discussing draft space, or that the subject belongs to the Pythagorean brotherhood and is under an oath of secrecy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes the topic ban. Since the scope of the topic ban is disputed, it’s safe for me to stay silent on the draft space usage. —- Taku (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Mainspace - If the author can't get it to where it will survive an AFD in six days, there is again no reason to think that he ever will, and there is no need to give him more than six days to get it to where it is ready for mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - It has been a non-stub (not even a sub-stub) in draft space too long. We are tolerant as to the quality of what is in draft space, but this has been an abuse of draft space. If the author wants to keep a lot of stuff that may or may not ever be ready for article space in user space, that is all right. If the author wants WP:WikiProject Mathematics to keep a To-Do list, that is up to the project. But there are limits on draft space, even if not many limits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Again, I cannot quite respond to this (without an expression of my opinion on drafts) but please note there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. -— Taku (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    But, generally speaking, from the perspective of content development, it doesn’t matter at al that whether an article is written in one day, one month, or one year. Or, neither if who starts and finishes the article. Wikipedia started with the idea that it is better not to micromanage who, when and how the editors write articles, since that turned out to be more productive.
    So, from this perspective, deleting this page achieves nothing since the topic still needs to be covered. You, on the other hand, believe it is necessary to go from 0% to 80% and then go back to 0% and then go up again to 100%. -— Taku (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, I didn't say what is being attributed to me, and it appears that you are not lying because you do not know truth from falsehood in this discussion, and mathematicians, like philosophers, are expected to know logic, which distinguishes truth from falsehood. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I was referring to your proposal that after 6 days if the draft is 80% of what is needed to be moved to mainspace, then it should not be continued to be developed. Maybe that's not what you meant? although in this particular draft, maybe 6 days can be enough. -- Taku (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Because Taku has finally provided content for this page to move it off a CSD:A3 analog (No Content), I would be open to a concensus enforced Merge/Redirect as suggested by WP:ATD. By a concensus enforced I mean a redirect is put on the Draft and Draft talk to Coherence condition or annother appropriate mainspace page and then Full-Protect the draft. This solves several problems: It removes a page that is in the Draft namespace (that is not a redirect) that has not been edited in several long periods, has been refunded, or has had perfunctary edits made to it to keep it off the CSD:G13 nomination list in violation of WP:GAME. Second it moves content that could be potentially useful into mainspace where normal editors can find it and improve it. Third it shows that the esoteric post-graduate mathematics/geometry topics do have potential in mainspace while tearing down the numerous walled gardens that nobody but Taku is allowed to edit. Fourth it prevents us having to be back to argue a 3rd nomination because Taku believes they know better than the consensus of the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    Please notice another set of falsehoods put by this user in a bad faith, as I believe. E.g., “nobody but Taku is allowed to edit.” is completely false. The consensus is (was) that the draft has a potential to become a mainspace article. The user is making the case for the interaction ban. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    I’m making another library trip today to find one more ref and with that, the draft should be good enough to be mainspaced. Whatever piles of words put this by bad-faith user, I think my actions show who is a good guy and who is an enemy of Wikipedia. —- Taku (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Move, either to User:TakuyaMurata/Coherency (homotopy theory) or preferably Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Coherency (homotopy theory). Taku, get out of DraftSpace. Read WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    I’m quite aware of the essay; I have an opinion on the essay (why it is wrong) as well as many ideas on how the draft space might be fixed (I am not at liberty to share the opinion and the ideas) . —- Taku (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • But if Taku refuses, then Delete as disruptive pointless games with works in violation of WP:NOR. While there is some unsavory conflict between Taku and User:Hasteur, the origin of which I have no idea, I only find Hasteur's version to ring true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the nominator seems to have had a bitter dispute with the draft creator going back years, which I don't think is helping here. I don't agree that Taku is using draftspace as an "indefinite storage location". I strongly suspect the subject of this draft is suitable for mainspace, either as a standalone article or as a component of some other article (unlike most drafts). Draftspace is supposed to be used as a "storage location" for that kind of content, and I don't see how trying to write stubs on technical mathematics topics means you are "not here to further Wikipedia's purpose". Nor do I see how forcing a content creator to move it to mainspace, or to somewhere else, helps the encyclopedia at all. Yes, as noted by Hasteur above, I did suggest that Taku move this to userspace, but only so that it would be immune from the fixation with deleting drafts that some editors have. Hut 8.5 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete There are far too many of these drafts that are sitting unedited, reach the six-month G13 deadline, have the G13 tag removed or are WP:REFUNDed, and then sit for another six months unedited until the cycle repeats. The draftspace is for drafting, not cold storage. I am preparing a mass nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to mainspace: After adding refers and making further edits, I think the draft is now ready to be moved to mainspace. (So, this MfD is essentially moot.) -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with promoting this to man space and letting it stand on its own merits, but I want a cast iron consensus/agreement that this page will not be returned back to draft space or to the author's user space as both of these are behaviors that have happened previously around the locus of Mathematics draft stubs created by TakuyaMurata. I do not want to have to do this again in 6-9 months because of various strategic gambits (similar to ANI-flu) where the previous unacceptable behavior is returned to once scrutiny/fervor has died down. Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to mainspace. The draft is at present a referenced stub that explains the very basics of the approaches to coherence in homotopy theory. As evidenced by the refs, it looks like a notable topic. This ongoing dispute between draft hangers-on and obsessive draft cleaners is tiresome and far more disruptive of productive encyclopedia work than keeping a few old drafts kicking around. As someone who occasionally helps maintain the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, I can attest that there is slow but reasonably steady progress in getting draft pages to mainspace, including Taku's creations. Too slow to promote all of them in six months, but progress is there. A notable topic and a stub with no fundamental problems suggests keeping the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AnglicanismEdit

Portal:Anglicanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

Six selected articles from October - November 2007, four from February - April 2008, four from December 2008, two from April - May 2009 and four from July 2010. The only addition to any of those pages since they were created was this potentially contentious addition in 2008.

The 20 selected bios follow almost the same pattern of neglect over the same period of time. The bio for Gene Robinson is six years out of date. He retired in 2013. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Christianity), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - In the first half of 2019, the portal had 32 average daily pageviews. The main article had 1806 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose re-creation per the nom and Robert McClenon. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of 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". As Portal:Lutherinism, Portal:Oriental Orthodoxy, Portal:Eastern Orthodox Church, and Portal:Anabaptism‎ show, individual denominations or their denominational "family" rarely if ever make viable portals that readers and maintainers want. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Selected Religion and Philosophy PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Freemasonry 14 9075 0.15% Originated 2009 by sporadic editor, edited most recently Jan2019. Only 6 articles, not changed since 2010 with only minor tweaks, none since 2013. 6 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Jainism 26 3736 0.70% Originator edits sporadically, last in June 2019. Articles are from 2012 and 2016, only cosmetic edits since then. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Atheism 27 2662 1.01% Originator inactive since 2013. Articles selected in 2007, very little maintenance since 2010. 95 At least two articles have been blanked. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Anglicanism 32 1806 1.77% Originated 2007 by editor who last edited 2010. 40 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Greek mythology 35 3681 0.95% Originated 2010; originator edits sporadically, last in Apr 2019. 35 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Buddhism 51 7928 0.64% Originator edits sporadically, last in June19. Articles created in 2009, only drive-by edits since then. 26 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Religion 78 2884 2.70% Originator inactive since 2011. Has 85 articles and complete calendar, but no sign of maintenance since 2009. Jan-Feb19 views were 79, 2899. 85 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Philosophy 133 5339 2.49% Originated 2006. Originator inactive since 2012. 72 Portal improved Sep 2019 by Northamerica1000. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
AnglicanismEdit
  • Weak Delete as a well-viewed (as portals go) but unmaintained portal. Better than most portals for number of articles, but articles are not being maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:JainismEdit

Portal:Jainism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Neglected portal. Six selected articles from 2012. None updated after 2012. Six selected bios: Four from 2012, two from January 2016. Only two selected articles link back to their host article. None of the selected bios do so either. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Religion), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Portal pageviews in first half of 2019 were 26, as opposed to 3736 for article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Is User:Mark Schierbecker saying that the content-forked stubs do not provide a way to view the original articles from which they were forked? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose re-creation per the nom and Robert McClenon. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of 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". The pages are also littered with dozens of references, and the portal is eight articles short of POG's minimum of 20. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Selected Religion and Philosophy PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Freemasonry 14 9075 0.15% Originated 2009 by sporadic editor, edited most recently Jan2019. Only 6 articles, not changed since 2010 with only minor tweaks, none since 2013. 6 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Jainism 26 3736 0.70% Originator edits sporadically, last in June 2019. Articles are from 2012 and 2016, only cosmetic edits since then. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Atheism 27 2662 1.01% Originator inactive since 2013. Articles selected in 2007, very little maintenance since 2010. 95 At least two articles have been blanked. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
Anglicanism 32 1806 1.77% Originated 2007 by editor who last edited 2010. 40 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Greek mythology 35 3681 0.95% Originated 2010; originator edits sporadically, last in Apr 2019. 35 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Buddhism 51 7928 0.64% Originator edits sporadically, last in June19. Articles created in 2009, only drive-by edits since then. 26 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Religion 78 2884 2.70% Originator inactive since 2011. Has 85 articles and complete calendar, but no sign of maintenance since 2009. Jan-Feb19 views were 79, 2899. 85 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Religion
Philosophy 133 5339 2.49% Originated 2006. Originator inactive since 2012. 72 Portal improved Sep 2019 by Northamerica1000. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Philosophy
JainismEdit
  • Delete as an unmaintained portal with too few articles, and as noted by nominator, forked stubs do not link to articles, leaving them even more disconnected than usual. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CultureEdit

Portal:Culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned portal. The sole selected article, since October 2015, is multiculturalism in Canada, which is a B-class article. You could learn more about culture by hitting the "random article" button a few times. From 2006 to 2015 the selected article was names of the Greeks, a start-class article. The aliens reading this portal must think we are a very one-dimensional species. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I will examine in more detail later, but at first examination I can see this is a spectacularly bad portal, even by the abysmally low standards which MFD has seen so many times in recent months.
Note that Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Culture lists several other sub-pages which aren't used in the portal, including Portal:Culture/Selected article with seven subpages which AFAICS were all abandoned in 2008. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The portal has only one selected article because an editor supporting its deletion removed all the others. Certes (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Certes, please drop the battlefield mentality, and try a little honesty.
I did not remove all the others. As the edit summary explains, and the diff clearly shows, I reverted the portal's conversion to an automated clone of a navbox.
If you have a substantive point to make, then please make it. But if all you have to offer is maliciously fabricated distortion of reality, then please point your keyboard somewhere else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete : Portal:Culture looks like it could be a broad subject area like Portal:Society. In theory, it might be. However, it consists of only seven articles, all selected in 2008, semi-randomly, only one of which has been edited, and that not substantively. The portal is well-viewed for a portal at 50 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb19, but the head article had 2720 pageviews in the same period. No maintenance, inadequate coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    I tried to update the portal's selected article but the change was reverted. Clearly the portal is not abandoned. As it stands, this is a Catch-22 --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This junk Bonsai portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save for a little one-off maintenance by passing editors, and is 12-19 articles short of POG's minimum of 20. It also has many blank or duplicate sub-pages, such as this and this. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Ancheta Wis, who (this is being generous) dumped it in June 2006, until this MfD spurred them to make two edits, one of which was reverted. While this portal pre-dates this stipulation of POG, the long-term point remains the same: this is a portal that should not exist.
It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a low 52 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Culture had 2,554 views per day in the same period). This is a significant long-term decline from the 88 views per day it had from July 1 to Dec. 30 2015.
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Culture has been labeled inactive since 2018 (the last editor to editor conversation was in Sep. 2015), and the portal has never been mentioned on the talk page. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Culture is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Culture is not a broad topic? What is then? The portal for a topic being poorly maintained doesn't always mean that said topic is not broad enough. We don't nominate articles at AfD solely because they're poorly written. Geolodus (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Never mind; I don't feel like participating. Geolodus (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newshunter12: Culture is not a broad enough topic. A statement for a list of interesting quotes about Wikipedia. Is that really what you believe? The problem here is that Culture is a too broad topic to make a good standalone portal using just the standard ingredients. A meta-portal leading to more focused portals would make a lot more sense, or a hybrid like Portal:Asia. I don't oppose deletion, as there isn't that much worth saving here at the moment, but there should be no prejudice against creation of a better portal. —Kusma (t·c) 13:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case I think it's Portal:Society), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to Outline of culture; or
Move to WP:WikiProject:Culture/Portal (essentially to archive); or
Delete as third choice, as it does not serve a valid reader-facing function. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)



September 14, 2019Edit

Draft:Naomi BristowEdit

Draft:Naomi Bristow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Obviously WP:SPAM and person didn’t seem to pass WP:GNG. This draft was deleted once and it was revived again. Harshil want to talk? 13:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is not an opinion Page. These are facts taken from news sources around the hometown of Naomi. Please consider these and realize that this article shouldn’t be deleted from the Wikipedia database.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinoGavv (talkcontribs) 13:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

GavinoGavv Wikipedia doesn’t owe anything to anyone or person like Naomi so that you’re talking that person’s entry must not be deleted. Be specific and try to discuss on policies. — Harshil want to talk? 22:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This draft was in good faith but by mistake incorrectly tagged for G8. It should have been tagged for G4, and for G11. Submitter is a single-purpose account who has done nothing but submit this page. This is probably paid editing. The pattern of submission and resubission shows that the author is not likely to submit a reasonable draft. Recommend Salt with Extended-Confirmed Protection to allow an article by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly notable, if so demonstrate via WP:THREE. Newcomers should not start by writing new pages, writing new pages is difficult and if you don’t understand Wikipedia you just waste your time and editors time. Improve existing content first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
On second look, mainspace it. Sources are good enough for the WP:GNG. If you disagree, that's what WP:AfD is for. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


I would like to bring to all of your attentions that I. am not being paid to write this article. Yes, my account was made shortly before I started to make this article. I feel that this person deserves a spot on the Wikipedia Database as much as lets say Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande. In no way, shape, or form am I being paid to write this. I am choosing to write this article on my own behalf. According to G4, Wikipedia will decline any articles that are paid to be made since they are not from a "neutral" standing. None of the information I have put in this article is biased at all. I took this information from news sources from around where Naomi is from in Beeton, ON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GavinoGavv (talkcontribs) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Mainspace as per User:SmokeyJoe. I do not yet have an opinion as to whether the page is ready for mainspace, but there is a reasonable case that it is, and that can be decided by an AFD. Promote it and discuss it at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:OccultEdit

Portal:Occult (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Abandoned portal on a narrow topic. 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 neither large numbers of readers and no maintainers. The portal has essentially been abandoned for over a decade, (the creator is inactive on Wikipedia with only 7 edits after 2012, but last touched it in July 2008, which was also their last edit to portal space). The page view count is higher then the abysmal rate of most portals, but still low. From January 1 - June 30 2019, there was an average of 61 views per day to the main page (while the head article Occult had 1,388 views per day in the same period.) There is a steady long term downward trend in views - the July 1 - Dec. 30 2015 portal rate was 86 views per day.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Occult shows (in rotation) four articles, each under a different heading. 1 was last substantively updated in 2007 when putting aside reverting vandalism and format changes. 2 was last updated in 2008. 3 was converted to a new article in 2015 and hasn't changed. 4 was converted into a transclusion in 2018 after being static for a decade. The DYK section was last touched in 2012, and has included many vandalism-level entries, such as 1 and 2. Number two was live for over five years until it was removed in 2012. The one picture in the gallery has been the same since 2007, though there was a format update in 2018. The Things to Do section untouched since 2008, save for a link update. The Occult topics section has been untouched since 2007. The quotes section has been untouched since 2008. There are multiple red links to long ago deleted articles on the main page.

WP:POG also guides that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal.". However, Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult has been labeled inactive since 2017, and it appears to have never had anything meaningful to do with this portal. The portal was last mentioned on the talk page in two posts by one editor about links in 2013. The only other mentions were a few generally confused comments in 2006-7.

It's time to just Delete this abandoned Bonsai portal and I Oppose re-creation because it has failed numerous points of POG for a decade or more. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. No change since last compared to other religion and philosophy portals. A well-viewed but not maintained portal with inadequate breadth of coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Religion), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, and oppose re-creation. Long-term poor maintenance = clear fail of 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) 01:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13, 2019Edit

Portal:Library and information scienceEdit

Portal:Library and information science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

All 21 selected articles have never been updated since their creation. Sixteen selected articles from March 2007. Three from November 2013. Two from January 2015. All 15 selected bios have not been updated since they were created in March 2007. Topics not well chosen (e.g. intellectual property and Censorship). Selections about American libraries and librarians overrepresented.

Errors

Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

* Postpone deletion and give it until the end of the calendar year for improvement? I for one will be more active now that I know it's languishing. Her Pegship (really?) 23:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC) See comment of 9/14/2019 below. Her Pegship (really?) 22:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Her Pegship I have no doubt you mean well, but please reconsider. You abandoned this portal almost 13 years ago (until this MfD spurred you to make a single 0 byte edit) and in the last six months, over 800 out of approximately 1500 existing portals have been deleted at MfD for the same reasons this one has been nominated (ex. Portal:Computer science, Portal:Moon, Portal:Jupiter, Portal:Ottoman Empire, Portal:Armenia). Portals need ongoing maintenance from a team of dedicated maintainers and for over a decade, this portal hasn't had it. There is 15 years of hard evidence that portals in general are a failed solution in search of a problem. The C-Class article Library and its multiple versatile navboxes do a far better job informing and navigating readers around this topic then this abandoned portal does. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This portal has been abandoned for over a decade, save some one-off maintenance by passing editors. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Pegship, who dumped it in December 2006. While this portal's creation shortly pre-dates that exact wording of POG, the long-term point remains the same: this is a portal that should not exist. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had over a decade of no steady maintainers and it had a low 76 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head articles Library and information science had 162 views per day and Library had 1,485 views per day, both in the same period).
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries is active, the portal has only been mentioned on the talk page twice, and both times the primary focus was other stuff: once in July 2008 and in March 2009, Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as over a decade of hard evidence shows Library and information science is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one hasn't even attracted the attentions of its creator, who as NH12 notes seems to have been unaware of the POG warning "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create".
I am very unimpressed by Her Pegship's comment above that they will be more active now that I know it's languishing. An actual maintainer doesn't wait a decade until there is an MFD before doing anything. Portals need multiple active mainatiners, but this portal has none ... and as Newshunter12 notes the WikiProject is uninterested, so it fails another of POG's crucial tests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question on backlinks. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if this discussion is closed as delete, I suggest that the backlinks be removed. I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s), without creating duplicate entries, but in this case I see no suitable alternative portals. Does anyone else see a viable alternative? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – This is a poorly maintained but well-viewed (more than 50 daily pageviews) portal. Any proposal to delete this portal should focus on whether it is doing any actual harm, such as presenting incorrect information to the reader. If this portal uses partial copies of articles as subpages, it should also be recognized that the risk of presenting incorrect information to the reader is high, because copied subpages are not updated when the articles are updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon When something has been abandoned to rot for over a decade, of course it is doing harm. Asking for detailed lists of every shortcoming is unhelpful. Numerous failings of WP:POG have already been described in detail above. This isn't the first time you've posted wiki-lawyering nonsense at MfD and I respectfully ask that you desist because it's not helpful. As has already been described to you in detail on your talk page, it's critical that any portal failing POG be uprooted to protect the integrity of the rest of portal space. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 - Save your civility violations for the portal platoon and others who disagree substantively. That sort of comment isn't conducive to collaborative editing or collaborative cleanup of the portal mess. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question to User:Pegship - Did you assume that once portals come into existence, there are volunteer portal maintainers who look for unmaintained portals to maintain them? Where do you think portal maintenance comes from? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

*Comment to User:UnitedStatesian - This is another portal whose history has been complicated by your one-person portal moving campaign. Perhaps you have now heeded the admonition of User:Northamerica1000. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:UnitedStatesian - It appears that I had written that in connection with another portal and put the comment in the wrong MFD. I apologize for putting it in the wrong place, and have struck the comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In response to comments regarding my motives and actions, I'm surprised at the use of words like "abandoned" and "dumped" and the sarcastic rhetorical questions and statements regarding what I know/knew or expect/ed. Rather than defend the creation or (lack of) maintenance of the portal, or explain my "0 byte" edit or any other action or motive, I completely withdraw my suggestion. For what it's worth. Her Pegship (really?) 19:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Her Pegship If that's the case, could you please strike your original vote and comment for the closer's convenience? Newshunter12 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unmaintained portal, without prejudice against re-creation with a maintenance plan with at least two maintainers and with a design that does not use content-forked subpages, which increase the need for maintenance and are subject to rot. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete My efforts over the last six months to take the first step to improve this portal by moving it to Portal:Libraries to match the name of both an active WikiProject and a much more heavily viewed article were repeatedly blocked. Oh well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject H. P. LovecraftEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject H. P. Lovecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

The one writer Portal:H. P. Lovecraft is far too narrow topic for a portal. He is not a Shakespeare, whose works have been studied for centuries and thus is a v broad topic with a lot of active editors.

The broader project Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction is tagged as "semi-active", so there is no need split out this topic into a sub-portal.

There is no demonstrated need or demand for this portal. It appears to have been created by Auric as some sort of WP:POINTy response to my comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (4th nomination); see this diff[70]

Wikipedia is awash with abandoned WikiProjects. Creating yet another one should be done only it meets a proven need and has a decently long list of interested participants. But WikiProject should never be created just to make as sarcastic comment on an MFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

My creation of this Wikiproject was not created out of anything like that. Please WP:AGF. I checked the guidelines and don't believe this Project has too narrow a focus. --Auric talk 10:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
This WP is intended to cover anything related to Lovecraft; i.e. His family, his friends, where he lived; and his works. I considered starting a Mythos WP, but just focusing on his works would be too narrow a scope.--Auric talk 10:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, but open to reconsideration: While I agree with most of BrownHairedGirl's sentiments, I wouldn't say outright deletion is quite the answer yet. I would instead recommend merging it into related WikiProjects, such as maybe WikiProject Authors/G-N and/or WikiProject Horror. I know we may have to consider the role WikiProjects will ultimately play during this ongoing mass deletion of portals, but I think we could perhaps consider the possibility of WikiProjects replacing narrow-scope portals (though that's a discussion for somewhere else). ToThAc (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @User:ToThAc, WP:PRJCRE says "A WikiProject is the people, not the articles or the pages that help the people work together, so this is the most important step. You must find people who want to work together on the project with you."
I see no evidence that this has happened here. A one-person WikiProject is just a set of pointless pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral at this time. This looks like two editors are both trying to make a point. I don't see the case for a WikiProject, but I don't think that this one has been given a chance to attract members, and it looks like a symbolic shedding of (bad) blood on both parts. In general, replacing low-use portals with WikiProjects is a good idea. WikiProjects, unlike portals, really are a way to get better article coverage. I don't see a good case for creating this portal or for deleting this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete regardless of the intent behind creating it, this portal is too narrow in scope anyway. There isn't enough content to sustain one. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this marked-as-draft project for now, to give the creator more than one day to attract other interested editors. I am surprised that so many of the !voters above refer to this as a "portal" (it is not), which makes me suspicious that in their good-faith efforts to !vote on many MfD's quickly they did not read this nomination carefully. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: Five days after the "project" was created, Auric is still the only listed participant.
If an editor wants to create a portalproject, why not seek out other interested editors before creating it? Wikipedia is awash with inactive or defunct WikiProjects, and keeping this one on the remote chance that it might attract interest gives a high probability that it will be just another of the inactive projects whose banners clutter article talk pages.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I think 5 days is a harshly short time to expect collaboration to materialize, and 1 day (the time between creation and this MfD) is especially harsh. While I agree seeking out other editors before project (n.b.: not "portal", as you incorrectly wrote) creation is a better process, we should not punish good-faith editors who naively followed a different sequence by hastily deleting their work. Consensus is that the inactive project banners are not clutter (esp. since multiple banners trigger autocollapse), but if this project turns out to be stillborn after an appropriate amount of time passes, you could always propose this project's template be deleted also, or seek different general consensus related to how we handle talkpage banners for inactive projects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian, the creator has a responsibility to do the recruitment before creation. Transferring that burden onto others is perverse reversal of burden, which makes unnecessary work for other editors who are thereby asked to spend an indefinite amount of time watching for signs of life on a page with minimal chance of success.
Deletion is not "punishment". It is simply housekeeping to maintain sanity in project space. The most efficient solution is to delete it now, and to allow Auric to open a DRV if they have new evidence in the form of interested participants.
I note with sadness, but with zero surprise, that after five days, Auric hasn't even mentioned the "project"'s creation at Talk:H. P. Lovecraft, so I see no reason to believe that there is any genuine intent to recruit.
It is also misleading to compare the project banners of a stillborn project with one which was active then faded away. The banners of a defunct project record actual activity, but those of a driveby creation are just graffiti. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No one is suggesting the recruitment burden be transferred to others, only that this one editor be given more time to perform it, as has been the standard practice in the past. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
That would be more persuasive if there was any evidence at all that the creator had even started trying recruitment. But so far there's been not a single post about the project on any usertalk or wptalk page.
So it looks like any recruitment will fall to other editors. Alternatively, they take on the burden of monitoring the project for some unspecified time, before having the hassle of MFDing it all over again. Whether Auric was being POINTy or just reckless, the answer should be "Not this way. Come back if and when you've done your homework successfully". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realized that there was a deadline to recruit. I've just been posting recruiting messages on the talk pages of some other WPs that might have interested members. --Auric talk 09:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note. The project still has has no members other than its creator, whose efforts to attract members consist of:
This "project" is going nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Correction: There is support for turning it into a task force, which is not the same as zero support.--Auric talk 10:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Counter-correction. @Auric there are suggestions that a task force might be more appropriate. But a task force also requires participants, and there are still precisely zero editors apart from Auric interested in being members of a Lovecraft task force. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to join the taskforce if it is made.★Trekker (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 12, 2019Edit

Portal:Washington roadsEdit

Portal:Washington roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

  • Ten selected articles; while all of them are good articles, this is only half of the general minimum.
  • Maintained by the creator for only twenty hours. They last edited in January 2019, and following maintenance has been too sporadic.
  • Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are only six for the portal, with a median of four.
  • Also, I think the reason the previous MfD failed was because too many portals were nominated at once rather than individually.

So yeah, I think this portal fails WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @SounderBruce: --Rschen7754 18:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete While the available pool of content is pretty decent, I'm not interested in maintaining a portal that can be folded into several others. SounderBruce 18:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Intersection portal (Portal:Washington (state)Portal:Roads). Subportals based in Intersections topics not meets WP:POG per "should not be redundant to another portal" Expanding a subportal based on an Intersection topic is to include redundant material with both parent portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Washington (state) +Portal:U.S. roads), without creating duplicate entries. In this case, there are only 3 links from articles, and none from categories, so it's a trivial job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, and oppose re-creation. Narrow topic + low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of 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) 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, and oppose re-creation per the nom. Too narrow a topic, not maintained, low readership, which adds up to a clear fail of 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". Newshunter12 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Before we discuss whether the portal meets portal guidelines, we should address whether deletion procedures are being followed. This portal already had an MFD which was closed as Keep; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/State-level road portals. Is it being argued that the closure was procedural, that the bundle was questionable? Is it being argued that the closure was a bad Non-Admin Close? The deletion of portals is sufficiently contentious that I would prefer to avoid any questionable nominations when there are still many portals that are clear failures. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Road PortalsEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Washington roads 6 Originated 2011. Originator edits sporadically, last in Jan19. Portal views for Jan-Jun are mean 6, median 4, due to peak in May. No single identified head article. 10 Portal peak of 56 views on 1 May 19. Median pageviews 4. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Transport
Roads 23 748 3.07% Originated 2007 by sporadic editor, last edit in April 2019. Articles have various maintenance through 2018. 22 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Transport
U.S. roads 29 Originator came in 2006, did their thing, went in 2006. Has another maintainer. Complex structure of monthly articles current through July 2019. No single head article. 168 Many Do You Knows, not researched. Jan19-Jun19 FALSE Transport
Washington State Roads PortalEdit
  • Comment:
    • The portal in question was the subject of a bundled MFD that was closed on 7 May 2019 as Keep. The closer was a non-administrative closer with little or no experience in closing XFDs, User:Nova Crystallis, who might not have known to make a distinction between a procedural close and a Keep, and one can argue that the close was a bad non-administrative close.
    • While some of the other state road portals in the bundle are being maintained, this portal does not appear to be being maintained (and my !vote was an error on my part).
    • There are only 10 articles, and if does not appear that they have been maintained since 2016. The portal has a mean of 6 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019, and a median of 4 daily pageviews. (There was a peak of 56 views on 1 May 2019.)
    • Metrics are shown above for the Washington Roads portal, the US roads portal, and the Roads portal. It should be noted that neither the Washington Roads portal nor the US Roads portal has a specific matching head article. The Washington Roads portal was tagged for months as needing attention for this reason, which illustrates that the tagging of portals is not useful.
    • The previous MFD should not prevent this MFD from being considered on its merits. I will go to Deletion Review if necessary, but am asking the closer to consider this on its merits.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I stand by my decision when I closed the XfD then. It was the right move at that point. It wasn't even close of a call for a consensus, just about everyone !voted keep (even you). Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Low readership, too few articles, no maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I was the delete nominator the first time around, but that MfD (which was less than five months ago) closed as keep, and it is TERRIBLE process to keep trying to delete the same portals over and over and over again until finally a delete result is achieved (sneak it past the keep !voters, don't even ping them). This should go to DRV, not here, if an editor believes it was closed incorrectly (bad NAC, for example) because NOTHING HAS CHANGED since that MfD: the portal has not decayed, no applicable policy or guideline was updated, nothing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian A past voter was pinged, some came on their own, and portal space has changed markedly since the last MfD. Many hundreds of junk unmaintained portals like this have been deleted since then, which necessitates a new review of this portal. WP:POG was also found, in the intervening period, to have technically not actually been formally accepted as a guideline a decade ago, which counts as a guideline update. Whining about process and making false claims are just a backdoor to trying to keep junk you like (in this case portals in general, not this specific one) in the face of overwhelming evidence. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 11, 2019Edit

Portal:BerlinEdit

Portal:Berlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

This portal may have been well-maintained in the past (unlike most portals nominated here), but nowadays...not so much.

  • Twelve selected articles; one is C-class, one is B-class, and the remaining ten are Start-class.
  • Though well-maintained by the creator for quite a while, their edits to the portal suddenly fell off a cliff to abysmal levels after nearly three years, with only one edit to the portal in 2018 and none in 2019. The only other maintainer made a flood of edits in early December 2011 (just before the creator stopped editing the portal), and hasn't been active since August 2018.
  • Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are 11 for the portal versus 4252 for the parent article, or .2587%.

A rather unfortunate failing of WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin. I don't want in any way to prejudge the outcome ... but if you close this discussion as delete, please can you not remove the backlinks? I have an AWB setup which allows me to easily replace them with links to the next most specific portal(s) (in this case Portal:Germany), without creating duplicate entries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. Some parts of this portal have been abandoned for over two years and others for nearly eight, and it is six articles short of POG's minimum of 20. Since late 2006, the lead of WP:POG has said "Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained by Bermicourt, who has sporadically maintained it after creation, and has only made one tiny edit in over two years. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This portal has had nearly eight years of no steady maintainers and it had a very low 11 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Berlin had 4,252 views per day in the same period).
POG also states portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but while Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany is active, the portal is not mentioned on the main page (save an auto-MfD notice) and the only mention ever of the portal on the talk page was the creation announcement and request for help in 2011, which got no response. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly eight years of hard evidence shows Berlin is not a broad enough topic to attract readers or (lasting) maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Berlin is one of the major world capitals and one of Germany's federal states, so easily qualifies as a broad topic. It has not been abandoned - I have simply paused working on portals while there has been a mass creation followed by the mass deletion of portals over the last couple of years - waiting for a rationale consensus before moving forward. Portals are not articles - they are navigation aids like categories, they are also important project tools to enable an overview of the coverage of a topic and the work needed to enhance and improve it. For example, editors could create a hundred new articles based on the gaps shown in the portal and a hundred more might be improved. Yet you would never pick that up by merely looking at portal views or portal edits. Most of the other criticisms are easily fixed - the reason the number of showcased articles is twelve is to fit a monthly cycle - twenty has never been a go/no go criterion for a portal - WP:POG calls it a "rough guide". The portal is now also linked from the main project page, so that issue has been fixed. Bermicourt (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per my arguments here and here I understant that cities portals not meets WP:POG, like biografies portals and second level countries divisions portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, and oppose re-creation. Narrow topic + low readership + poor maintenance = clear fail of 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". The comments above by @Bermicourt that It has not been abandoned - I have simply paused working on portals is clear evidence of the problem: the portal has not attracted the multiple maintainers required by POG, and is wholly dependent on the efforts of one editor.
As noted by @Guilherme Burn, the experience of the last six months of MFD is that it is exceptionally rare for any city to be a broad enough topic to make a viable portal. Portal enthusiasts have repeatedly massively underestimated the breadth of topic required to make a viable portal. That's why over 800 of the 1500 pre-portalspam portals have been deleted in the last 6 months. Portal enthusiasts need to concentrate their efforts on way fewer, better portals rather than trying to defend the abysmally failed practice of trying to maximise the number of portals. Berlin is only a Level-4 vital topic. i,e. in the 1,000–10,000 rage of priorities. With the number of portals now closer to 500 than to 1000, Berlin simply isn't significant enough.
I admire Bermicourt's work in creating what @Britishfinance called the "mega-navbox" style of portal, but sadly it hasn't proved to be any more attractive to readers than the failed excerpt model. However, the lists here may well be useful to editors, so I would support moving them to project space so that editors can continue to make use of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and oppose re-creation – Cities, federal states, and I think even countries, tend not to be good topics for portals. As I see it, the "broadness" criteria is linked to the "readership" and "maintainers" criteria: a portal has to be sufficiently broad in order to attract enough readers and maintainers to keep the quality up. This portal–like every city portal I've seen so far–isn't broad enough to attract enough readers and maintainers. You can see it in the lack of feature content and in all the red-links: there just isn't enough content about Berlin being created to assemble into a portal. Some may argue that this is a "chicken-and-the-egg" problem: that the portal encourages editors to create quality content, so therefore if we delete the portal, we'll be counterproductively discouraging the creation of quality content. I think, however, this argument has been disproven: this portal was created in 2009. Clearly, creating a portal without enough content does not encourage the creation of the missing content. My final thought is one I keep having about the remaining portals: the article Berlin is B-class. This is a world-class city, it should have a Feature-class article. In my opinion, every editor hour spent on the portal is better spent on the article. Levivich 21:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting but somewhat incomplete portal, closer to a pretty Outline (but we don't have Outline of Berlin) than to most other portals. It is clear that a city like Berlin is a very broad topic area, but maybe easier to make a focussed portal about than about a whole country (where selected articles tend to be a bit more random). As a point of order, I do not think the first MfD on a page can prejudice the re-creation of a different page under the same title, so any such votes should be discounted as outside of MfD's remit. A re-creation has to pass WP:CSD#G4, not additional criteria not set out in policy. I support a move of the lists of red links (which include the useful information about article quality in the German Wikipedia) to suitable subpages of the Germany portal or wikiproject, and oppose outright deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 09:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Eight Great CitiesEdit
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
Berlin 11 4252 0.26% Originated 2009. Has article-of-the-month implementation with articles as of 2017. Maintenance has been inconsistent. 12 Jan19-Jun19 FALSE City
Moscow 11 3766 0.29% Originator edits sporadically, last in 2018. 12 articles, not updated since 2011. 12 Jun19-Jul19 TRUE City
Beijing 15 3754 0.40% Deleted. Jan19-Feb19 TRUE City
Tokyo 28 6486 0.43% Appears to be maintained. Articles are for sum of city and metro area. Jan19-Feb19 FALSE City
Paris 36 6485 0.56% Originator came in 2005, did their thing, went in 2005. Nothing to maintain. 2 Viewings Jan-Jun19 were 36/6593. Jan19-Feb19 FALSE City
London 37 15016 0.25% Greater London = 1797 views Jan19-Feb19 FALSE City
Rome 45 4734 0.95% Jan19-Feb19 TRUE City
New York City 82 17169 0.48% Originated 2005, but originator inactive since 2014. Portal has 57 Featured Articles, 347 Good Articles, 34 biographies. 404 Jan-Feb19 view metrics were 82/17169. Jan-Jun19 view metrics were 81/16298. Jan19-Feb19 FALSE City
Portals compete in a different league from articles, so the comparison is not very useful. Portal:London does have twice as many page views as Outline of London does [72], and Portal:New York City has six times more than Outline of New York City, see [73]. —Kusma (t·c) 09:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
What, User:Kusma? The point of the comparison is that portals seldom have even 1% of the readership of articles. This table permits any of a comparison of portals against other portals, a comparison of articles against other articles, or a comparison of portals against articles. You can attach what importance you wish to the ratio of article views and portal views. Some editors find it interesting. If you don't, you can ignore it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
If you are suggesting that Outlines be deleted because they are useless, that is likely a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)comments
Discussion of BerlinEdit
  • Neutral at this time - This portal is much better than Portal:Paris. Some of the criticisms are not accurate. It is stated that the portal has had very little maintenance in several years. Maintenance to a portal doesn't always have to be maintenance to the portal page. The portal has an article-of-the-month plan that was implemented in 2017, or at least the articles were put in in 2017. That is maintenance. I agree that the pageviews are poor. I agree that creating a portal in order to get improved article coverage is not effective, and results in neither good portals nor good articles. But nominators of portals for deletion, and portal critics, should at least have their facts straight. The portal has been maintained more recently than the nomination says. Robert McClenon (talk)

Portal:H. P. LovecraftEdit

Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

Neglected portal.

  • Seventeen selected articles; of these, two are unrated, one is Stub-class, five are Start-class, six are C-class, two are B-class, and only one is a featured article.
  • Though I'll cut some slack for the creator for actually attempting to maintain the portal, they last edited the portal in late May 2019. They're also the only major contributor to the portal.
  • Average daily pageviews in the first half of 2019 are 12 for the portal versus 4858 for the parent article, or roughly .247%.

So yeah, I don't think this really meets the golden rule of WP:POG. ToThAc (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, and oppose re-creation per the nom. This portal is about an exceedingly narrow topic and has very low readership, which is a clear fail of 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". Newshunter12 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't oppose deletion. I've tried to maintain the portal, but the strongly negative attitude against portals has sapped my will. Too often I see good, creative portals deleted for spurious reasoning, and I figured it would happen to this portal eventually, as it seems destined to happen to all. --Auric talk 11:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Auric: I don't think "spurious" is the right word to describe WP:POG; in fact, it's been shown in recent months that portals about narrow topics, abysmally low pageviews, and/or only one or two maintainers are usually left for dead, sad as it may be. ToThAc (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    I say spurious because it seems the pageviews aguement should only matter if Wikipedia derived some financial benefit from all the clickthroughs.--Auric talk 18:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per a variant of WP:BLUDGEON. So let me get this straight: the process is, keep nominating portals after no consensus closures, until the maintaining editor gives up in frustration? (and I know that no consensus permits such renomination, but that doesn't change the fact that this process stinks because we need engaged editors: how does driving them away help the project?). And an editing gap from May to September is "neglected"? (a word that is not found in the WP:POG guideline, by the way) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    UnitedStatesian, your argument basically boils down to WP:IWORKEDSOHARD, and WP:BLUDGEON doesn't apply here, since the creator can still take their work to related venues, such as Portal:Horror fiction or Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror instead. Pinging Auric for their thoughts. ToThAc (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Except that WP:POG, by requiring maintenance, means that WP:IWORKEDSOHARD is a completely valid "keep" argument in Portal MfDs. And the only problem with your suggestion is (as both you and the maintainer know) that Portal:Horror fiction suffers from even worse issues than this portal, and so is almost certainly going to be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: Then the work and backlinks can go to the next narrowest portal; in this case, either Portal:Biography, Portal:Novels, or both. And like I said, the aformentioned WikiProject is a viable option as well. ToThAc (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I expect the same argument will be used when those portals are up for deletion.--Auric talk 18:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Auric: Except those two particular portals probably won't be nominated for deletion at press time considering that they at least meet the "broad scope" guideline; even if they are deleted, another user (likely BrownHairedGirl) will find a viable solution for what portal is up next. And as I mentioned twice above, WikiProject Horror is also a viable alternative. ToThAc (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Which raises the question: what is the topmost portal, to which all portal content will ultimately flow? Portal:Everything? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: Portal:Contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Portal: Main page.--Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". POG also says that "the portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal." This fails on all four counts:
  1.  N Broad topic. No. Category:H. P. Lovecraft+subcats contains only .592 articles.
  2.  N High readership. The portal's January–June 2019 daily median of only 5 views per day is trivially low. That's barely above background noise.
  3.  N Lots of of maintainers. No. Just one.
  4.  N WikiProject. WP:WikiProject H. P. Lovecraft is a redlink.

This fail-all-criteria portal isn't an aid to readers. It's just a hobby portal, and it shouldn't be in reader-facing position. Delete it, or move it to project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Does this mean you support starting such a Wikiproject?--Auric talk 19:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Auric: No. See WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject H. P. Lovecraft, and please desist from WP:POINTy conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Please don't assume that I do anything out of spite. I hadn't though about actually creating a WP until you mentioned it, but you made it seem like a good idea. I shouldn't have to ask an admin to WP:AGF, but please do.--Auric talk 10:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Auric: WP:PRJCRE says "A WikiProject is the people, not the articles or the pages that help the people work together, so this is the most important step. You must find people who want to work together on the project with you."
I see no evidence that this has happened here, and the time between me posting the link and you creating the project was too short to recruit others. A one-person WikiProject is just a set of pointless pages.
Maybe, you were not being POINTy; but if so, you were acting recklessly, contrary to the WikiProject guidelines. Five days after you created the "project", you are still the only listed participant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete people shouldn't have portals period.Catfurball (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, maintained portal with some neat ideas (the selected stories with links to Wikisource are great, we should encourage this kind of content). Last deletion nomination was only a couple of months ago, with significant opposition to the idea the topic was "too narrow". WP:POG, written as a "how to create a portal" page, does not have a "list of necessary criteria" as mentioned above; this is just something the people interested in deleting portals like to claim. The harm done by deleting this portal clearly is larger than any possible gain from deleting it. And per UnitedStatesian. —Kusma (t·c) 20:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kusma: are you seriously saying that is untrue to assert 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"?
Really really really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That is what the page states (but recall the history of that page, which used to be the portal MOS, not the portal keep/delete criteria; we have never had a page written with that intention). It does not actually state anywhere that a portal has to have any maintainers, or that it has to have any readers. Unlike WP:POG, recent MFDs have indeed established a rough consensus that portals be maintained and have some readers. Unfortunately WP:POG have not been updated to reflect that consensus. —Kusma (t·c) 09:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kusma: Lemme see if I understand you right.
You agree that POG does say those words, but disagree that it means that a portal needs to have any readers or maintainers. If not, what's the point of the words?
You don't explicitly say whether you agree that it says that portal has to be about a broad topic, and I don't want to assume either way. But I hope at least that much is accepted. If so, are you really saying that that the life and works of one mid-rank author (significant in his genre, but a v long way from a Yeats/Tagore/Proust/Marquez/Frost, let alone a Shakespeare/Dickens/Austen) is a "broad topic"?
And given that you do explicitly agree that "recent MFDs have indeed established a rough consensus that portals be maintained and have some readers", surely all this textual pedantry is moot?
Yesterday, it a discussion at WP:VP/PR#Proposal_to_delete_Portal_space, you wrote in a thoughtful and civil reply to me[74] that "On the whole, portals are probably not worth the amount of debate that we have about them". I agree that they are taking up too much of the community's time, but it seems to me that your !vote here is an excellent example of why we end up having so much debate about them.  
It reminds me of how, back in Feb/March 2019, enough portal enthusiasts objected to the proposed speedy deletion process for TTH's portalspam that the proposal fell just short of 2/3 support and was narrowly closed as "no consensus", so even tho there were two mass-deletions we ended up having a few hundred MFDs to remove pages which TTH&co rapidly-created at sustained rates of up to 1 every 90 seconds, some of them "just for the heck of it". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep for now, reserving the right to change my !vote, based on good arguments by User:BrownHairedGirl and others for deletion, but a solid case by User:UnitedStatesian for a Procedural Keep. Three MFDs in six months, two of which were closed procedurally and one of which was inconclusive, are enough. Very little harm if any is done by keeping this portal longer before reviewing it again, and harm is done to the limited efforts to take a reasoned attitude toward portals by bludgeoning the discussion of this portal. (I don't see much reasonableness by long-time portal advocates and can't expect it. User:UnitedStatesian is a former portal critic who has become a portal advocate. The critics of portals need to be reasonable, since reason may be in short supply with regard to portals.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon, the solution to any risk of forum-shopping is simply to ping the participants in the previous discussions. After a a series of botched discussions, it would be perverse to procedurally keep a portal which you seem to agree fails POG, just for the sake of a few pings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination reopened as per BrownHairedGirl's request here. Pinging Robert McClenon, UnitedStatesian, Auric, and Newshunter12 so they may continue participating in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToThAc (talkcontribs) 13:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, no grounds for "procedural" keep – The nomination history of this portal is misleading, and I think that may be driving editors to perceive a procedural flaw where there is none. Although this is titled the "4th nomination", it's actually only the second, brought four months after a "no consensus" close. Re-nominating a page four months after an NC close is completely 100% procedurally proper, and done all the time. The first nomination was actually a bundled nomination that was a procedural keep only because it was an improper bundle. The second nomination resulted in no consensus back in May. The third nomination was a bundled nomination that was a procedural keep only because it was an improper bundle. This is the "fourth" nomination, but it's really only the second individual nomination. So the history is: procedural keep (improper bundle), no consensus (individual), procedural keep (improper bundle), and this one (individual). It just makes no sense to "procedurally keep" this individual nom, when there were two prior noms procedurally kept for being bundled. Since I've written enough about this, I don't want to spend too much time repeating the solid grounds of the delete !voters above, with which I agree: the portal is not broad enough, doesn't have enough readers or maintainers, and isn't supported by a WikiProject. Individual authors (like most if not all bios), in my opinion, are unlikely to make good subjects for portals. Levivich 18:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    • To add: If we procedurally keep this nom, what will happen is there is 100% guaranteed to be another nom in the future. (After all, that's what procedural keep means.) A procedural keep on the basis of "too many noms" is counterproductive. If we don't want too many noms, then we should vote substantively on this portal, right now, instead of voting based on procedure. A definitive consensus–based on substance and not procedure–is what will prevent this portal from being re-nominated again. Levivich 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, User:Levivich, there was one valid nomination and two invalid bundles. My point is that making too many invalid bundled nominations is undesirable and interferes with the cleanup of portals that need cleaning up. There are still at least a few hundred portals that need deleting. We don't need to bludgeon this one. Wait a few months. I know that there will be another nomination. Just leave the portal alone for a few months first. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about invalid bundles, but what I don't understand is why wait a few months. How is waiting a few months better than deciding now? What is the difference? Consider that, if we wait a few months, all the editors who spent time at this MfD will have to again spend time (or other editors will have to spend time in their place) in a few months. The "procedural keep" argument is that we should spend more time on this later because we've spent too much time on this in the past (due to improper bundles). It makes no sense to me. Levivich 00:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not meets WP:POG Simply based on the consensus of dozens recents MfDs about bibliographic portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per conclusion about biographical portals below by User:BrownHairedGirl. I had reserved the right to change my !vote and have seen a solid substantive case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for considering it at least.--Auric talk 10:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Biography PortalsEdit
  • Note on biography portals: After the deletion today of Portal:Jane Austen, this is now the last remaining portal on any individual (see Category:Biography portals)
    Here's an incomplete list of previously deleted portals on individual people, excluding all of the many many dozens of biographical portals which were just automated spam created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and his loyal disciples:
Politicians
Religion
Writers
         
Individual musicians
It's clear that there is now a stable consensus at MFD against keeping a portal for any individual. All but one of the writers listed above is of vastly greater significance than Lovecraft, as are both the politicians and religious leaders, and at least some of the musicians (e.g. Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson).
The word "fancruft" is overused at XFD, but that's what this portal is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
That is a very interesting list of names of people, including who appear to be the most significant in the short run, e.g., Barack Obama and Donald Trump, and those who have had the greatest influence on recorded history in the long run, Jesus and Muhammad. Thank you, User:BrownHairedGirl. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 9, 2019Edit

User:Գարիկ ԱվագյանEdit

User:Գարիկ Ավագյան (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)

WP:NOTWEB. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/%D4%B3%D5%A1%D6%80%D5%AB%D5%AF_%D4%B1%D5%BE%D5%A1%D5%A3%D5%B5%D5%A1%D5%B6: for over six years this user has done virtually nothing on enWP other than edit this page. Guy (help!) 16:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You are definitely right, at the moment I am an active editor of the Armenian and Russian Wikipedia. But these facts don't mean I wasn't an editor of English Wikipedia as well. Being currently a non-active user of English Wikipedia doesn't mean deletion of the user's main page. What concerns other things. As for personal information, I used a Infobox user template, which in itself means entering personal and autobiographical data. Additional personal information may not serve as advertising as you mentioned. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

September 8, 2019Edit

Portal:LanguageEdit

Portal:Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ToThAc (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Neglected portal. Five selected topics from September 2013: three C class and two B class. Quality aside, topics are not well chosen as they are specific to just one or just a few languages (e.g. split infinitive, Museum of the Portuguese Language, Click consonant). Seven selected languages from September / November 2013: one FA, two B class, two B or C, one C, and one Start class . In June 2015 an editor replaced a C-class article with a start-class article. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wug·WP:POG states that portals should have a minimum of 20 articles, while this one is eight short. It also says portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but none are even mentioned on this portal, as is standard. That the portal looks fine to you and you subjectively believe it's about a broad topic mean nothing under WP:POG. It completely fails these provisions of POG and more as described below. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Newshunter12: The guideline literally says "Good number means about 20 articles, though this figure may vary from case to case and is intended as a rough guide rather than a hard principle." This is very different from a required minimum of 20 which you seem to incorrectly believe. If you think that the topic of "language" which covers at least 6000 different topics (there are over 8000 ISO prefixes for individual languages) that is patently absurd. Wikipedia has over 700 articles just on languages proper, let alone the 16000 articles in Category:WikiProject Languages articles. That "language" is a broad topic is far from a subjective evaluation and just because no one has bothered to fork more pages doesn't suddenly make it not a broad topic. Besides, this portal was nominated on subjective grounds; the nomination literally begins with "neglected portal" and proceeds to say "quality aside" before listing surmountable problems that don't affect the reader experience. If the portal was broken or displaying things it should not be, then I'd agree that this is a derelict portal, but no one has raised any problems with this portal beyond not liking the way it is currently laid out which is not a reason to delete. You also seem to misunderstand what "should" means. Your opinion that it must be associated with a wikiproject or advertise them is demonstrably false. There's a literal section of the POG you linked titled "required" which lists required elements of a portal, all of which this portal has. Not listed there, and not even listed in the "recommended" section is "WikiProjects" which is listed under "optional". No one has raised any actual problems, just moaned that the portal doesn't comply with their arbitrary standards for page views or layout when it's completely within the guidelines. I recommend you go read the portal guideline because it does not say what you seem to think it says. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:POG has very specific broadness guidelines about having large numbers of readers and maintainers, which this portal doesn't have, so your giant text wall means nothing here. It fails WP:POG and should be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:POG has very specific broadness guidelines if they're so specific why have you not only been unable to quote them but misrepresented the POG in two separate MfDs? Wug·a·po·des​ 01:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I have not misrepresented POG anywhere. Here is what WP:POG says portals must be about: "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." No guesswork is needed. For nearly six years, this portal has had no steady maintainers and very low page views. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Below you say WP:POG requires a minimum of 20 the guideline says about 20 articles, though this figure may vary from case to case and is intended as a rough guide rather than a hard principle which is very obviously not a minimum let alone a required minimum. Above you say [POG] also says portals should be associated with a wikiproject, but none are even mentioned on this portal, as is standard. when the portal guideline doesn't even list WikiProject advertisements in the "required" or "recommended" sections but under "optional" features which is definitely not defining a "standard" nor a recommendation with the force of "should". All of this was said in my "wall of text" above which you ignored.
Second, what you quoted is not "very specific broadness guidelines" as you claimed. Firstly, that paragraph has a disputed tag at the end (in fact, the whole guideline is disputed) and if you read further down it says "The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal". It has attracted enough attention to sustain itself as shown by the obvious fact (which I pointed out in my original comment) that the portal is not broken and seems to be functioning as intended. You may not like the way it was intended to function, but that is not a reason to delete it. And neither is hyperbole about what the POG says. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:POG says two paragraphs in: The portal should be associated with a WikiProject (or have editors with sufficient interest) to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal and maintain the portal. That portal fans have been kicking and screaming that POG needs to go because it has actual quality standards means nothing here. POG is the law of the land here and now, and what might happen to it down the road means nothing. If you want this portal kept, I recommend you start an RFC called WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
You realize I helped draft the ongoing discussion about whether the portal guideline still has consensus right? Wug·a·po·des​ 23:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the nom. This mini-portal has been abandoned for nearly six years, save for some one off updates by passing editors. There are only 12 articles total, when WP:POG requires a minimum of 20, and I agree that these topics do not appear to be thoughtfully chosen. It clearly fails WP:POG's requirement that portals should be about subjects broad enough to attract large numbers of readers and maintainers. This decrepit portal has had nearly six years of no steady maintainers and it had a low 62 views per day from January 1 to June 30 2019 (while the head article Language had 3,169 views per day in the same period. Portals stand or fall on their merits in the now, not what could someday hypothetically happen with them, and this one falls flat. I oppose re-creation, as nearly six years of hard evidence shows Language is not a broad enough topic to attract readers and maintainers. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete as per User:Mark Schierbecker without prejudice to a new design of portal not using forked subpages . I disagree with User:Newshunter12 that 62 daily pageviews is low. This is a well-viewed, poorly maintained portal. We should encourage the development of an improved portal that will take advantage of the breadth of the subject area. With hundreds of articles on languages and aspects of languages and a complex category tree for language categories, is there some way that language categories could be used to select articles, rather than either manually forking the subpages or simply transcluding pages from a list (meganavbox-style)? I am prepared to change this !vote to a Weak Keep if a design concept and a maintenance plan are proposed for this portal.

This table summarizes this portal and Portal:English language:

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Percent Comments Articles Notes Baseline Deleted Type
English language 8 9408 1176.00 0.09% Originator inactive since 2007. Portal:English was folded into this portal. Only ever 2 articles. 2 Apr19-Jun19 FALSE Language
Language 62 3169 51.11 1.96% Originator inactive since 2007. Articles selected in 2013, only occasional tweaks through 2017 and 2019. 12 Apr19-Jun19 FALSE Language

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - Too broad of a topic for portal deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87 Your vote is pure WP:ILIKEIT, not based in any policy or guideline. Subjective broadness means nothing, as has been proven at many hundreds of portal MfD's in the past six months where the decision was delete. The facts are this portal is eight articles short of POG's minimum of 20, has been abandoned for about six years so has no maintainers, and has a mere 1.96% of the daily page views of the head article. It crashes and burns when trying to meet the bar WP:POG has set. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@bd2412 How does merging a portal that has been abandoned for six years with a portal that has been abandoned for over a decade suddenly make either portal comply with WP:POG? It's time to just delete this junk six years of hard evidence shows readers and maintainers don't want. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Whatever articles are under Portal:English language would then be under Portal:Language. I tend to agree with Wugapodes that this is too basic of a topic not to have coverage in this space. Gaining activity might just be a matter of generating some publicity for it. bd2412 T 22:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and per NH12. Despite, the WP:ILIKEIT !votes above, the fact remains that this portal clearly fails POG's requirement for maiantainers, and while its 62 pageviews per day is above the abysmal average for portals, it's a tiny fraction of the views of the head article. A navigational and showcasing hub needs to do much better than that.
The fact that after 14 years, this portal still has only 12 selected sub-topics is clear evidence of long-term failure. Forget the risible wikilawyering arguments that 20 isn't a hard minimum: if a portal on such an allegedly-important topic was being maintained with the slightest care for its readers, it would have many many times that minimum.
I have some sympathy with those assert that this is a fundamental topic, and that if we have portals, then language should be one of them. However, by the same token, readers should not be lured to a portal on a fundamental topic when the portal is such a shoddy, abandoned relic. That wastes the reader's time, and degrades Wikipedia's hard-won reputation. Readers would be much better served by being directed to the GA-class head article Language, which performs the key portal functions of navigation and showcasing much better than this abandoned page; and editors would use their time much more productively by bringing that Vital-Article-Level-1 article up to FA standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Re: Language is a broad topic. Portal:Linguistics exists. It is in poor shape, but I would argue it is arguably a better container for the language topic. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect or merge, but I do not oppose recreation (as long as it's recreated appropriately, in line with then-current POG and other PAGs, etc.). I think the 8 main page portals are "broad enough", and when I look at a list like Art, History, Science, Mathematics, of course I think of "English" aka Language aka Linguistics... I'm not sure what you call it, but I could envision a portal being broad enough and I could see it being called Portal:Language. But this portal isn't it. Per nom and other delete voters, it doesn't have enough articles and other content, isn't maintained, isn't of interest to readers in its current form. (No comment on Portal:Linguistics.) There is nothing to merge, and little will be gained with a redirect (nobody is typing in "Portal:Language" in the search bar, and AFAIK there are no linkrot issues thanks to what I believe is an army of bots under the command of BHG). So delete this portal, but if in the future editors want to have a go at recreating it, I wouldn't oppose. Levivich 03:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What to do with backlinks? This portal has incoming links from 772 articles. I don't want to prejudge the outcome, but if the portal is deleted, the question arises of what to do with those links. I see three otions:
  1. Redirect to Portal:Linguistics.
  2. Redirect to the article Language.
  3. Remove the backlinks
  4. Keep the backlinks
My thoughts on those options:
  1. I mildly oppose redirection to Portal:Linguistics, because that's a significantly narrower topic.
  2. I'd be OKish with a redirect to the article Language. I don't like cross-namespace redirects, but this may be the least-worst option if editors are open to this portal being re-created under some conditions, because a re-crated portal could use those links. (Note: I redirected Portal:Education to the article Education on these grounds). OTOH, only 722 links is pathetically small for such a broad topic, so this tally is only a tiny fraction of the number of links which the portal really needs. So T think that link removal is no big deal
  3. As above, removing the backlinks would mildly increase the work needed in creating a new portal, but only mildly. I'd be OK with this, and my WP:AWB setups can do the removals easily.
  4. I very strongly oppose leaving the backlinks as redlinks. Those backlinks are tracked in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and several subcats thereof. I try to keep those cleanup categories clean, to allow prompt detection and fixing of broken portal links, and that work would be impossible if those tracking categories were flooded with hundreds of pages which couldn't be cleared.
Pinging all particIpants in this discussion: @BD2412, Knowledgekid87, Levivich, Mark Schierbecker, Newshunter12, Robert McClenon, ToThAc, and Wugapodes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd say remove all backlinks, as that would be the most straightforward option, and also doesn't have a special preference over any specific case. ToThAc (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with TTA, remove all backlinks. Perhaps there is some place to save the AWB list to make it easier in the future to link to a new portal, if one is created? Levivich 00:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl - It occurs to me that perhaps you are trying to do more for the portalistas than they deserve or appreciate. They were complaining in deletion discussions that the real reasons for low pageview rates were inadequate backlinks. Maybe the advocates of portals should be asked what to do with the backlinks, at least to see whether they really have any intention of re-creating any portals. But I don't see any real desire or plan on their part to create new portals, certainly not using any sort of modern design.
I am puzzled when you say that you don't like cross-address-space links. A link to Language is not a cross-address-space link, because the backlinks are from articles. So if you don't want to remove the backlinks, make them to the article. Just my opinion. Or ask the portalistas. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Robert, my objection is not to cross-address-space links. It's to cross-namespace redirects, which to my mind breach the principle of not surprising readers. See WP:XNR.
I agree that the portal enthusiasts show no interest in this. As you have rightly noted many times, most of them show little or no interest in doing anything at all to make portalspace viable, i.e. to ensure that it well-maintained, adding value for readers, and attracting lots of readers. They much prefer to moan angrily about the deletion of abandoned junk portals and to wikilawyer spurious reasons to keep the unread junk, or to try to remove or dilute the minimal quality requirements in POG. (One of the starkest examples is that NA1K reverted Legacypac's unilateral change of the 20-article minimum from an aspiration to a hard minimum. They actually, seriously, genuinely seem believe that portal which hasn't even been built to the pathetic level of 20 sub-topics is something other than a failure which wastes readers' time).
If the portals fans were remotely serious about making portals viable, then for the last six months they'd have been falling over each other in the rush to ensure that Portal:Languages had 72,000 incoming links rather than 720.
But that's them, and I hold myself to higher standards. So I try to my best to clean up after deletions, and to do so with the minimum of destruction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Remove all backlinks if the portal is deleted, these backlinks are not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Why would I want to continue to participate in a discussion where anyone with a different opinion is insulted by spurious, mealy-mouthed accusations of wikilawyering? Sections of the portal guideline are obviously disputed, and acting like they have sufficient consensus to be treated as uncontestable minimums is disingenuous at best. Why would anyone want to devote their time or effort to improving portals when the requirements are a moving target? Portal:Art is linked from the main page and doesn't even have 1000 mainspace links, but this one is supposed to have some absurdly higher number of links to justify itself. For all the talk of serving the reader, no one has raised any actual problems with the portal except that it doesn't meet some arbitrary and disputed minimum number of subpages. I'm sure that if it actually did have 20 articles as subpages we'd be clamoring to delete it because it has subpages instead of being structured some other way (see e.g., Robert's !vote above). I can neither assume good faith nor assume the assumption of good faith, and at that point it's best to just not participate. Thanks for the ping, but everyone will be happier if I spend my limited time doing work elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes, you get accused of wikilawyering because you are wikilawyering, and doing it badly. You know perfectly well that POG requires a portal to have maintainers, but you persist as if that requirement wasn't there. Yes, a handful of editors do object to POG including any quality thresholds in POG, but after 6 months they have yet to open a WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS RFC to test whether there is some sort of community consensus that 6 months of deleting over 4000 junk portals has been a bad idea.
That's like claiming that a landslide election victory is "contested" because a handful of dissenters are on a street corner somewhere, even though they repeatedly refuse to make a formal complaint to the electoral commission of the international observers.
Similarly you quote the section of POG as reinstated by NA1K " "Good number means about 20 articles, though this figure may vary from case to case and is intended as a rough guide rather than a hard principle.". It had been "bare minimum of 20" for about 6 months, but was reverted By NA1K to the older, looser wording.
Are you seriously suggesting that the topic of language is some sort of special case which cannot reasonably be expected to meet a minimum of 20 articles in its display? Really?
After 6 years, this abandoned portal showcases only a pathetic 7 out of what you say is 700 articles just on languages proper, and only one of them is FA or GA-class. Yet you go on to complain that no one has raised any actual problems, which is blatantly untrue, because that low number was raised in the nomination.
If you make such bizarrely foolish assertions, then it's little wonder that you feel insulted by the inevitable responses. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete. This is the type of topic that ought to be broad enough to create and maintain an adequate portal, but that is not what we have in the portal that exists today. --RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful to WikiProject Languages and for navigation. Does not fail all guidelines listed in WP:POG. Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit Your vote does not reflect reality and should be ignored by the closer. Despite being notified in August, no one from Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages has cared to participate in this MfD and the only conversations to take place on their talk page about "Portal:Language" were all in 2006, as seen in this archive. The GA-Class head article Language has multiple rich and versatile navboxes, and far more views. Nothing about this portal is needed or meets WP:POG; its only use is to please the whims of those that like the idea of portals. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the portal is about a very broad topic and does get some page views. Yes, it doesn't get as many views as the main article, but that doesn't mean anything except that portals in general aren't a great idea, and generally getting rid of portals has been rejected by the community. There is no requirement in WP:POG that portals must be regularly maintained, it says that attracting maintainers is the rationale for requiring that portals should be about broad topics. This portal is about a very broad topic. Sure, the portal has deficiencies and could be improved, but that isn't a reason to delete it and that rationale would be laughed at in article space. Hut 8.5 18:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree, but portals aren't articles, so I don't see why we should treat them as such. That the portal doesn't have maintainers is evidence (if not proof) that the topic isn't broad enough to attract maintainers (especially after how many years?), and being "broad enough" is a requirement of POG. Levivich 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    • (ec) @Hut 8.5: that's a very creative take on WP:POG. What's the point of maintainers other than to do maintenance?
And the comparison with articles are misplaced. This is not an article, it's a navigational tool, and it's in too poor shape to do that job. Deleting a poor article removes encyclopedic content, but deleting the portal just removes a broken signpost.
WP:ENDPORTALS was a decision not to delete all portals. It was not a decision to keep broken portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ATD says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". This is a universal principle, it doesn't just apply to articles, and the policy doesn't in any way restrict it to articles. There are people above arguing for deletion based on fixable concerns, such as the portal not having enough selected articles. These arguments aren't valid reasons for deleting a page as they contradict policy.
WP:POG says "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". I read that as saying that portals have to be about broad topics, and the rest of it as giving the rationale why we ask that portals be about broad topics. In practice the portal namespace has been very neglected and few portals are actively maintained, even those which are about broad subject areas, but that's a problem with portals in general rather than this particular portal. Trying to get portals like this deleted one by one using this mechanism seems to be a creative way to get round WP:ENDPORTALS, by getting rid of portals one by one at MfD instead of holding another RfC (which would probably fail). Personally I'd be happy to get rid of most of the portals we have, but I don't think the basis for doing so exists. Hut 8.5 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm kind of doubting that anybody had portals in mind when ATD was written. But I'm more concerned by the trend to !vote in particular MfDs based on feelings about portals (or process) in general. Let's leave those discussions for other pages. Do you think this portal serves our readers? Do you think this portal is going to get improved by anyone anytime soon? If this portal doesn't have value to readers and isn't going to have value to readers anytime soon, let's delete it, and free up resources for other things. Levivich 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5: I am getting rather sick of the ABF sniping that the deletion of abandoned portals are some sort of defiance of ENDPORTALS. In the last 6 months, about 850 portals have been deleted, with lack of maintenance a significant or dominant factor in most of the MFDs. So it is very clear that there is a broad community consensus that portal are not articles, and so may be deleted if they are junk and there isn't a credible rescue plan. If you dissent from that broad consensus, please feel free to open an RFC at WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS ... but unless and until that RFC gains community support, the established community consensus is that failing portals may be deleted.
I agree with @Levivich. What on earth is the point of luring readers to a portals which adds no value, and has no identifiable prospect of improvement? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not in any way suggesting that the nomination is in bad faith, merely that it isn't the right thing to do. By my count there are about 650 portals on Wikipedia, and they are still being deleted, so that 850 figure represents most of the portals on Wikipedia. I'd say that a consensus not to get rid of portals in general means we can't delete most of them anyway. There is undoubtedly a consensus amongst some MfD regulars that these portals should be deleted, but that doesn't mean the rest of the community supports it as well. If this portal is deleted on grounds of low page views and/or lack of maintenance then I strongly suspect that an awful lot of the remaining portals will be deleted as well. WP:ATD is clearly intended to apply outside article space, as it says "pages" rather than "articles", and it means that demands the portal must be improved now to avoid deletion go against policy. Hut 8.5 06:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5: back in April, as we neared the end of automated portalspam deletion and MFD moved on to examining pre-spam portals, I thought that we'd end up deleting a hundred or so of the ~1500 pre-spam portals. But I repeatedly revised my estimate downwards, because editors kept on finding yet more abandoned junk, and a few months ago I gave up making estimates. If you look at the rest of WP:MFD, you can see detailed analyses of dozens of portals which are in terribly poor shape, most of them abandoned (or woefully neglected) for about a decade.
If the community wants to keep portalspace, we should have as many (or few) portals as the community can actually maintain at decent standard, which actually attract readers. I for one will happily stop the time-consuming task of bringing portals to MFD when I stop finding abandoned junk, a point which I thought we would have reached long ago. But sadly we still seem nowhere near that point; I have a rough mental list of about a dozen more portals in terrible shape, while other editors find more elsewhere, and my own browsing will probably find more too.
A consensus not to get rid of all portals means that we should not delete those which pass the long-standing quality thresholds in POG, standards which are themselves abysmally low. If you want to assert that we should stop deleting abandoned junk, try opening that WP:KEEPJUNKPORTALS RFC, and see what the consensus is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Easily meets the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. The 20 article number in the WP:POG guideline refers to the portal's potential size, not the size while the portal is is in the process of being built out. Any maintenance issues (and the ones here are very minor) can easily be fixed by, um, maintenance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
"while the portal is is in the process of being built out"??????????
C'mon, @UnitedStatesian, that's thoroughly disingenuous. The portal was created on 20 December 2005‎. That is 5,025 days ago. This isn't "being built"; it's abandoned.
That's the WP:GODOT defence: so long as we retain the portal (no matter bad it is), there remains a theoretical possibility (no matter small it is) that it may be improved some day. Just like Sam Beckett's play is built around the theoretical possibility that Godot may turn up.
Meanwhile, readers are lured to an abandoned junk page, when they would vastly better served by being directed to the head article..
Are we building an encyclopedia for readers ... or just a museum of some editors' abandoned impulses from a portalmania phase ten years ago? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral (striking previous Weak Delete) - It appears that a No Consensus close is likely, in which case this portal may be revisited in a few months to see whether it has been improved. It is a well-viewed but poorly maintained portal that needs attention in two areas. The first is that it needs an improved design, not relying on forked subpages, preferably relying on categories rather than requiring embedded lists of pages. The use of categories to select articles will further reduce the amount of maintenance that is needed beyond the reduction from the replacement of content forks. The second is that it needs at least two maintainers and a maintenance plan (a document or subpage) specifying what types of maintenance are done when. This portal, like Portal:Olympic Games, Portal:Asia, Portal:Companies, and Portal:Solar system, can provide an opportunity for the portal advocates to show what can be done with portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon, your optimism is surprising. It's now 7 months since @UnitedStatesian launched the RFC which halted the creation of automated portalspam, and 5 months since the bulk of the portalspam was deleted. That's lots of time for portal advocates to have devised some prioritisation of portals, and to have developed some examples of good practice for the higher-priority topics. But neither has happened, and I am not holding my breath for a sudden change. (See e.g. Category:Portal pages by importance: overwhelmingly unprioritised).
I have many doubts about the idea of relying on categories rather than requiring embedded lists of pages. Merely displaying category trees would add no value for readers, and anything more than that would require some form of automated selection. I have yet to see any explanation of how that process could work with the limited software and metadata available, and the previous experience of portal automation was not happy. No doubt you have given it much of your usual careful thought, but rather than floating such the notion at MFD, it would be much better to draft a proposal and launch a discussion in project space. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed discussionsEdit