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:, 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 add a line to the top of the list:

{{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
  Feb Mar Apr May TOTAL
CfD 2 13 30 87 132
TfD 0 1 32 13 46
MfD 0 0 16 4 20
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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.

May 20, 2019Edit

Portal:Transnational child protectionEdit

Portal:Transnational child protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very narrow topic. Abandoned since 2016.

Created[2] in March 2016‎ by Hipersons (talk · contribs),who lasted edited in late 2016. The disclosures at User:Hipersons asserts exertise in the field.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Transnational child protection, shows a small set of set of sub-pages unchanged since 2016.

This fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.

Similar wording has been in place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This narrow-topic portal has not attracted any maintainers since the portal's creator stopped editing.

I was initially struck by the apparently extensive list of sub-topics at Portal:Transnational child protection/Topics. However, I ran it through AWB's list-making tools, and it actually contains links to only 15 unique articles, plus the head article Transnational child protection. the rest is just redirects or sub-pages. That set is crying out for a navbox, so I made {{Transnational child protection}}, and added it to to the appropriate pages.

All the article sub-pages are included in the navbox {{Transnational child protection}}:

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. {{Transnational child protection}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • PS See the note at Portal:Transnational child protection/About this portal's team: "This portal, along with relevant newly created or expanded articles, was initiated by a consortium of experts who assigned one person to execute the work. The planning, writing, editing and execution was partially funded by the European Commission's Return Fund. Further funding is being sought to expand the scope, further improve existing pages, and train a small community of experts in how to help build the portal.
    Any bias towards the European situation is unintentional. All efforts to ensure the global situation is represented are warmly encouraged."
Given the lack of development, it would appear that the plans did not materialise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TurtlesEdit

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

Delete Multi-page portal of a subject that does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline and is redundant to Portal:Reptiles, under which it can be more than adequately covered. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator and per 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) 05:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Role-playing gamesEdit

Portal:Role-playing games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static portal abnadoned since 2006.

Created[3] in January 2006‎ by Genesis (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2014.

The small list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Role-playing games shows:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Role-playing game.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 80 consecutive updates, and over 140 updates in total.

In theory, this might be seen as a broad topic; alternatively, just as a narrow topic which has been copiously documented. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SantanaEdit

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

Abandoned, redundant portal about a narrow topic: the rock band Santana (band).

Created[8] in November 2010‎ by Tomcat7 (talk · contribs).

The subpages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Santana are a small set:

There are also 4 selected pictures.

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

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

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

The result is that portals are redundant for many topics, especially for topics such as thsi which have a single comprehensive navbox: {{Santana}} has links to 117 unique article pages, each of which can be previewed on the navbox.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Recent MFd discusions have agreed that portals about a single band or musician are a narrow topic, except perhaps in some execeptionl cases. This one has not attracted maintainers, and got only 7 pageviews per day in Jan–Feb 2019.

Note that this portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana. That a poorly-attended discussion closed as "keep", but did not consider the redundancy of this type of portal to its navbox. I am making this nomination to allow a further discussion in light of that new evidence, and ping the participants in the previous MFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the participants at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana: @Legacypac, Northamerica1000, Robert McClenon, SportingFlyer, Levivich, and Pythoncoder ... and the closer DannyS712. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Previous discussion from March of 2019, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Santana, closed as keep. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – I !voted keep in the first MfD, but since then have learned a lot more about portals. Nobody visits them, and it's because narrow-scope portals like these don't offer anything you can't get at the article. Levivich 04:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tamil cinemaEdit

Portal:Tamil cinema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned non-portal about Tamil cinema.

Created[9] in April 2014‎ by Visnu92 (talk · contribs).

Nothing here except four boxes, listed listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Tamil cinema:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 60 consecutive updates.

In theory, this may be a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 8 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a low-miantenance modern portal without content-forked sub-pages..

I don't know how broad a topic this is, so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Telugu cinemaEdit

Portal:Telugu cinema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned non-portal about Telugu cinema.

Created[15] in December 2016‎ by Kailash29792 (talk · contribs).

Nothing here except three boxes, listed in the v short list at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Telugu cinema:

I don't know how broad a topic this is, so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The portal has 7 average daily pageviews, which is nowhere near enough to warrant a portal even if maintained. The head article has 1471 average daily pageviews. But does User:Kailash29792 have a comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: If a portal isn't the right place, then don't use it to store and keep track of featured content. Find a place that is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19, 2019Edit

Portal:Yoruba peopleEdit

Portal:Yoruba people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static mini-portal about the Yoruba people, abandoned since 2008.

Created[17] in August 2008‎ by Ukabia (talk · contribs) who last edited in May 2018.

The list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Yoruba people is slim, and the key subpages have already been moved by @UnitedStatesian to the Nigeria partal:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 consecutive updates.

Category:Yoruba people looks a bit slim to consider it a broad topic. That's probably because of Wikipedia's systemic bias against African topics, but whatver the cause, the articles are not threre. And in practice, it doesn't meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Yoruba people and its navbox {{Yoruba topics}}.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as failing the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Both this one and Portal:Igbo people should be covered at Portal:Nigeria, provided that one survives deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - A portal is a miniature Main Page, and is labor-intensive. Is someone willing to invest time to maintain the portal? Silence implies non-assent. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super LeagueEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Project created long ago that doesn't seem to have ever gone anywhere. WOSlinker (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough history to be worth marking it as historical. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Rock climbingEdit

Portal:Rock climbing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal abandoned since 2011. No list of topics or rotation of content, just a few static pages abandoned since 2011.

Created[22] in February 2011‎ by Cj005257 (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2018.

Only a few sub-pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Rock climbing:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 90 consecutive updates.

In theory, this might a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 6 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked sub-pages; instead they should build a modern, low-maintenance portal without content-forked sub-pages.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AzerbaijanEdit

Portal:Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned manual non-portal (only one of each) converted to a navbox-based automated portal.

The current version[26] of this portal is an automated one, drawing its article list solely from the navbox Template:Azerbaijan topics. That makes it a redundant fork of the navbox, and there is a clear community consensus to delete portals built this way. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

However, this portal was not included in the mass deletions because it has a prior history. It was created[27] in June 2006‎ Grandmaster (talk · contribs) as a manual portal with subpages, and in January 2019‎ converted[28] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to automated format.

I can see why TTH automated it, because the manual version (see e.g. the 27 August 2015 version[29]) was just a long-abandoned static page with one of everything. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Azerbaijan shows

  • One selected article, which had its last significant edit[30] in 2010
  • One featured article, the excerpt of which has barely changed in 13 years[31]
  • One biography, which had its last significant edit[32] in 2011
  • One picture
  • Portal:Azerbaijan/Azerbaijan news, consisting solely of articles from April–July 2009 (tho at least the year is stated, so that readers can see it's ten years old)
Portal:Azerbaijan/Did you know, with 5 entries

The result is just a single static, outdated page, with neither navigational aids nor effective content-sampling. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... but this offers no enhancement over the head article Azerbaijan and the navbox Template:Azerbaijan topics.

In other words, after 11 years of this portal's existence, there is no version worth keeping. We should not be wasting readers' time by encouraging them to visit this pointless page.

Yes, I am aware that Azerbaijan is a country. But very poor-quality country portals have previously been deleted: see Angola and Myanmar. This one is slightly better than Angola, and significantly better than the basically-empty Myanmar portal; but still not good enough to justify sending readers to it.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Azerbaijan is clearly a broad topic, but there is no clear community consensus either way on which broad topics should have portals. The head article is a Level-4 vital article, i.e. it is in the 1,001–10,000 range of priority topics, which seems to me to be a marginal set. As of now there 1,368 portals, of which 149 are being discussed at MFD, leaving only 1,209 whose existence is undisputed. So it seems to me to be unlikely that community has the resources to extend portals far (if at all) into VA-4 topics.

But surprises can happen, and there no consensus to deprecate portals on this sort of topic; many editors argue that there should be portal for every country. So I propose that this portal its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to recreating a curated portal which is not a fork of some other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete at this time, with the following comments:
      • Waiting for a comment from User:Grandmaster, but not likely to support a Keep in view of the history of the portal.
      • Like BHG, some editors think that every country should have a portal. I am not sure that I agree, because I am skeptical of portals in general, but I recognize their position.
      • The "need" of a country for a portal is a reason that the deletion should be without prejudice. It doesn't justify keeping cruddy portals.
      • The Vital Articles list is crud, and has no vitality.
      • Neither the heritage version nor the robotic version add value. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a country it has sufficient scope for a portal to exist. Content issues should be addressed via editing per WP:DEL-CONTENT; and there is no deadline. If the nominator is concerned that readers would view the portal and believe they're seeing a finished product, appropriate tagging could solve that (as the deletion policy also states). WaggersTALK 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Waggers, articles are content, so deleting them removes content.
Portals are not content, so they are not covered by content-based aspects of deletion policy. They are a navigational device and/or a showcase for existing content, so the case for their existence depends on whether they do that well enough to add value per WP:PORTAL: "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". If they don't do that, they should be deleted, just like we routinely delete redundant or non-defining categories.
In this case, the pseudo-portal has rotted for thirteen years. This isn't a content issue; it is a rotten, almost non-existent junk issue.
What on earth is the point of wasting the tine of readers by trying to keep this rotten junk? If your aim was to discredit the whole portals project by retaining even the most useless and and most long-abandoned pages, then you would be doing brilliantly ... but if you have any other objective, then your determination to let this abandoned relic of 2006 is self-defeating. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I haven't referred to any specifically content-oriented aspects of the deletion policy but to general principles that apply as much to portals as anywhere else. This entire nomination is based on what can be seen at the portal; the selected articles, pictures etc and frequency of updates. You can't update a shell or a framework, (other than changing colours and formatting etc) so the argument that "portals are not content" makes no sense in the context of a nomination that is all about the content of a portal. If you are concerned about what readers see when viewing a portal that needs additional maintenance, then the deletion policy already gives a perfectly workable solution: WP:ATD-T WaggersTALK 17:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense, @Waggers. Deletion policy gives a remedy in cases like this of deleting the page.
Portals have no content; they simply direct readers to content elsewhere, or display content which is located elsewhere. If you disagree, then please show me the content in this portal: there's none except WP:REDUNDANTFORKs in the rotting old subpages.
As to the DP, even if it applied to portals which consist solely of code (like this one), WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
Like most of he other pseudo-portals which you advocated keeping today, this a severe case. It is automated junk of a type which the community has overwhelmingly supported deleting, built on top a 13-year-old draft. Both versions purport to offer an enhanced view of the topic, but do nothing of the sort.
Yet you continue to point to WP:DEL-CONTENT as if it placed a total ban on deleting junk pages, which it explicitly doesn't. Please read policies before wandering around cherrypicking them.
I repeat: if you are trying to discredit the Portal Project by representing it as the defenders of spam and of decade-old rotten junk pages, then you are doing a great job. Otherwise, not so good. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Since you're copying and pasting exactly the same text across multiple discussion pages, I'll simply refer you to my reply to this particular one made elsewhere. Suffice to say, there's no "if" - deletion policy is deletion policy and applies to the whole project, as any administrator worth their salt knows full well - and if there was no content to a portal then there would be no difference between a portal worth having and one that isn't. Clearly that isn't the case. WaggersTALK 17:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, @Waggers, policy is policy. So as an administrator yourself you should not have to be reminded yet again that WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
So are you really, seriously, trying to claim that deletion policy forbids the deletion of a page which has basically two versions: a) a replica of the drive-by spam by a creator of over 4,000 such spammed pages; and b) a 13-year-old abandoned draft? Really?
If you are serious, go to DRV, and ask for the two mass nominations to be overturned. Because all the wikilawyering cherrypicked-picked "policy" arguments you make here apply there too.
You write if there was no content to a portal then there would be no difference between a portal worth having and one that isn't. Oh dear. This is not complicated: the portal contains instruction to link to or transclude content located elsewhere. It's just like a TV set: the set delivers the content to you, but it is not content. If someone steals your TV set, the content won't disappear, because TV set is just a delivery mechanism, like a portal.
So the difference between a good and bad portal is what instructions are given, but the content is stored elsewhere. That's why, as you are well aware, the precondition for creating a portal is that enough content exists elsewhere.
And I ask again. What on earth are you actually trying to achieve by keeping this junk? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I've said elsewhere more than once, I think nations generally make good portal topics, though our coverage of non-Anglophone areas is often embarrassingly weak. I don't agree with using the vital topics framework, as it is somewhat random and does not (and should not) take into account the fact that some topics are inherently more portal-able than others. There again, with many of these long-abandoned micro-portals, a maintainer/expander needs to be found. Has the Wikiproject been informed? They are tracking 12,722 entities including plenty of C+ class and 20 FA/FL/GA so there's some hope. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 
When the skeleton is there,
the elephant can be improved at will
036 -> 2019-03-26 Baskervill
037 -> 2019-04-02 Verman1
038 -> 2019-04-09 Agulani
039 -> 2019-04-26 Kheo17
040 -> 2019-05-01 Grandmaster
041 -> 2019-05-04 Cekli829
042 -> 2019-05-05 Hovhannesk
043 -> 2019-05-05 Nicat49
044 -> 2019-05-07 Daydreamer2011
045 -> 2019-05-08 Brandmeister
What could be their opinion about using the skeleton of a portal and pretend to describe Azerbaijan as a country... with simply THREE articles ? Remark: waiting for a answer from the Project itself, would give the impression that you have not done your homework.
Pldx1 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
It has been wasting the time of readers for 13 years. What exactly are you trying to achieve by retaining junk which has been abandoned for 13 years? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • "Junk" is a subjective weasel word. The portal has potential to be improved. North America1000 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and Revert seems to be the same weasel sentence as ever, that would be better stated as "I !vote keep while you, peones, are required to work in my stead". It seems that User:Northamerica1000 cannot be arsed to invest the small quantum of NA1K's precious time that would be required to push the undo button and revert this portal to the wrong version of NA1K's choice. Another possibility is that Northamerica1000 is not in a hurry to astound the world by practicing the improvement of a dead elephant's skeleton to the point of producing a living elephant. Miracles help to maintain faith. Pldx1 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000, it is utterly outrageous projection for you to accuse me of using subjective weasel word by calling this "junk". You know perfectly well that the nomination sets out in great detail exactly how this portal has been abandoned, and why I assess it as junk. The only assessment you have offered is the one word "imperfect", even though you know full well that all of the portal's selected content remains unchanged since 2011 or before. The only one using a subjective weasel word here is you, and you engaging in shameless smearing. Please clean up your act. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
You asked me a question. I answered it. It's my opinion; there's no accusation, "smearing", none of it. You're reading into a simple comment way too much. Don't take it personally; it's not personal. As I said, the portal has significant potential for major expansion. North America1000 13:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – The portal has been reverted to its pre-automated version. North America1000 13:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • So now we have a static page, basically unchanged in content for a decade, so it's just a decade-old content fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I may expand the portal if it's retained. It would be counterproductive to expand it while it's nominated for deletion, because if deleted, the work would then vanish. This would be a waste of my time and energy. Rather than nominating everything for deletion, why not post requests for improvements, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Azerbaijan? People at WikiProject Portals have been working on portals based upon such requests. North America1000 20:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
        • @Northamerica1000, as you very well know, I am not nominating everything for deletion, only the worst.
Why MFD them? Because :
  1. there are literally hundreds of long-term abandoned portals, most of the completely abandoned for between 5 and 14 years. There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals.
    e.g. Category:All portals currently contains 1,331 portals, of which 1,074 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's 81% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 13 years
  2. Because as well as having no identifiable programme of assessment, the portals project also has no identifiable of repairing and updating the many hundreds of portals which are inadequate due to having less than ten pages showcase, nor the hundreds more which still display content in aged conetent forks, contrary to WP:REDUNDANTFORK
  3. Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. NA1K has not identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic. The only offer so far is from NA1K, who as far I know is not an Azerbaijan expert ... even that is vague I may expand the portal if it's retained. Not "I will raise it to high standard", not "I will maintain it", not "I will anything" ... just a vague maybe-do-something-unspecified as NA1K has made at many previous MFDs. The best that will come out of that is maybe a few extra subpages added before NA1K moves on to leave the portal to rot again, without a maintainer.
  4. Because a set of 12-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers. Much better to stat afresh, using new tools to build a new portal without the forked subpages.
That last point is particularly important. So far as I can see, any editor who claims that the outdated content forks are in any way helpful to building a a decent portals to replace abandoned junk simply hasn't been keeping with the tools available.
For the last 2 months, I and other editors have worked in good faith to try to clear out the automated portalspam created in the last year, and the abandoned junk which has accumulated over a decade of neglect. It has been my hope throughout that this would leave a core of portals which add some value for readers, and could be built on. But if members of the portals project are going to oppose the cleanup of abandoned junk without a mechanism, plan, or topic-skilled editors to fix them, and cling to the fantasy that these many hundreds of abandoned pages are somehow going to be magically fixed by magical topic experts who magically appear from nowhere to magically fix the portals they have shown no interest in over the past decade ... then it may be time to abandon this approach and simply propose mass deletion of most portals.
It's time for the portal fans to choose. If they cling to the fantasy, then the result will be another decade of portalspace strewn with abandoned junk, and I don't think that the community still an appetite for putting up with that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It is my opinion that portals for these small countries fail the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirements, and this one would be much better covered within Portal:Asia and Portal:Europe. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Two weeks ago I recommended a Delete, but asked whether the portal author had a recommendation. Neither that editor nor any other portal maintainer has responded. Creating portals by any of the various methods is easy. Maintaining them is work, and it is work that does not really serve a purpose when more than 400 times as many readers view the article, and follow the links and categories, as view the portal to see its selections. The portal has an average of 14 daily pageviews. The head article has an average of 5839 daily pageviews. It is magical thinking to expect that portal maintainers will come to portals on countries and other "broad subject areas"; but it is also mistaken thinking to think that portal viewers will come to read portals on countries. The portal guidelines should be reworked to recognize the lack of interest in "broad subject areas", but, in the meantime, I have already recommended that this portal be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 16, 2019Edit

Portal:Kanye WestEdit

Portal:Kanye West (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic: the musician Kanye West.

Other portals for musicians have been deleted, e.g. WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beyoncé Knowles, and portals deleted at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Drake (musician).

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Kanye West with its two navboxes {{Kanye West}} and {{Kanye West songs}}.

The portal contains only three boxes, one of songs and one albums and a slideshow of pictures.

The picture slideshow is redundant, because it's a built-in-feature of the head article. (See below)

Each of the other boxes displays a content-forked excerpt of the lead one of 5 pre-selected articles. However, that is also redundant, because each item is listed in a broader-scope navbox which already has that functionality built-in.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software mean that the two key functions of this portal built in to the head article and its navboxes. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incongnito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of this portal is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on {{Kanye West}} and {{Kanye West songs}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article Kanye West, so try clicking on any image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny slideshow on Portal:Kanye West.

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

For a narrow topic such as this, the portal adds nothing. It's just an inferior replica of functions already provided by default on all the relevant articles.

Why waste your time coming to this page for excerpts of the lead of 5 songs when {{Kanye West songs}} already has that functionality built-in for all 221 songs it displays? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Yet another abandoned portal, whose originator has not edited in eight years. The head article is a remarkably popular article with average 11,345 daily page views in January and February. By contrast, the portal has had an average of 15 daily page views, a ratio of more than 700:1. There is already an emerging consensus that individual performers are not "broad subject areas" for portals, and the metrics confirm that. Readers who want to read about Kanye West can read the head article and then dive down via either links or categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Portals require active maintenance in order to fulfil their purpose.
  2. A single person is seldom of broad enough scope to warrant a portal, as confirmed by previous discussions.
  3. Page views show that what is left of the functionality of the abandoned portal has been usurped by other browsing methods such as the MediaWiki preview extension.
  4. Much of the content is forked needlessly from extant navboxes.
SITH (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The high ratio of pageviews between the head article and the portal of 756:1 is similar to Portal:Eminem, Portal:Rihanna, and Portal:Taylor Swift. These ratios confirm the consensus that individual performers (or groups) do not support portals. I recommend that this portal be deleted with prejudice against a re-creation in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:JerusalemEdit

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

Abandoned, broken mini-portal.

Created[33] in May 2013‎ by Ypnypn (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2015.

Converted[34] in January 2019‎ by Emoteplump (talk · contribs) which built its "selected articles" list from from 3 navboxes. Emoteplump was blocked 2 day later as sockpuppet[35].

Restored[36] on 1 April 2019‎ by @UnitedStatesian to its pre-automation state by @UnitedStatesian.

However, that format is broken. Most refreshes just show a set of redlinks, because the portal is configured to look for 5 Selected biography sub-pages and 5 Selected article sub-pages ... whereas Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Jerusalem shows that there are no biog sub-pages just two article sub-pages:

The portal has:

The articles portal could be tweaked to display only two sub-pages which actually exist, but that would still leave it as a useless page, falling miles short of the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Jerusalem.

The portal meets the broad scope criterion of WP:POG, but it abysmally fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.

Similar wording has been in place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Get rid of this broken thing. It has an average of 12 daily pageviews, which is more than some portals, and more than this one should have. The head article has a daily average of 5,434 daily page views. Portals should only be created by editors who are ready to maintain them themselves, and should not be kept to wait for portal maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Portals require active maintenance and curation to fulfil their purpose.
  2. Compounded by portal abandonment, users are clearly using other features such as the MediaWiki preview function to enhance their browsing experience, as evidenced by the page views of the portal compared to the head article.
  3. Currently the portal does not have a large enough pool of articles, however it is plausibly broad enough for a portal, therefore this is without prejudice to recreation and continued curation or automatic maintenance should a maintainer materialise.
SITH (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've cleaned up the red link problems. Regardless, the portal is rather bare bones. North America1000 13:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No prejudice against recreation of a curated, functional portal. A broad enough topic to meet WP:POG's broad subject area criteria. North America1000 14:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Nothing here beyond a re-cut of the main artice+navbox. Thankfully the main article is in good shape (unlike other portal discussions), however the abandonment of the portal means that it will only detract from the integrity of the main article over time in the eyes of the reader. We need to focus our stretched editing resources, not spread them even thinner. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Global KnowledgeEdit

Draft:Global Knowledge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft by a paid editor on a marginally notable or non-notable company was Rejected on 26 February 2019, as reading like an advertisement, and as not satisfying corporate notability as written from the corporate viewpoint. It has been trimmed, and now contains less fluff than it did, but is just a shorter puff piece, and was resubmitted rather than discussing. It still has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, including the company's own web site, and Wikipedia.

This draft with its current author will never satisfy corporate notability. Recommend deletion, and Extended-Confirmed Protection in draft space and article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete and ECP. Paid crap. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: ordinarily I would err on the side of maintaining the history because it includes a paid editing disclosure, however, it's clear that WP:CORPDEPTH hasn't been met, and if it was, another person, less involved and less... paid would be better placed to write it considering the amount of promotionalism in the draft. SITH (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ArabicEdit

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

A fully-automated, navbox-cloned portal. No curated version to revert to it.

Most automated portals based on a single navbox were deleted in April at two WP:CENT-advertised mass deletion MFDs: one, and two. There there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals as redundant forks of the navbox.

This one draws its "selected articles" list from two navboxes: {{Arabic language}} and {{Varieties of Arabic}}. They could logically have been combined, because there is significant overlap between the two navboxes: 25 of the 86 article-space links in {{Varieties of Arabic}} are also in {{Arabic language}}. If there was an editorial choice to keep them separate, it seems to derive solely from the visual bulk of each.

Both navboxes are transcluded on the head article Arabic, so the portal adds nothing to head article.

Detailed explanation of the redundancy

The automated portal consists of 2 elements:

  1. a slideshow of articles, drawn from two pages: Outline of performing arts and the navbox {{Performing arts}}
  2. a slideshow of images, drawn from the head article Arabic

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software have made this redundant. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on {{Arabic language}}, and/or on Arabic.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article Arabic, so try clicking on any image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny slideshow on Portal:Arabic.

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

So the slideshow of article lead excerpts is redundant to the built-in preview of all Wikipedia pages. If you want a preview of the articles linked from Arabic or {{Varieties of Arabic}} or {{Arabic language}}, just go the page and put your mouse over the link. Instant preview! (works only if you are not logged in. Like ordinary readers, for whom we create Wikipedia)

If you want a slideshow of the images in the head article Arabic, then go to the article and click on any image. Automatic slideshow! (again, works only if you are not logged in. Like ordinary readers, for whom we create Wikipedia)

The Arabic language is obviously a broad topic. It has been used in various forms since the 4th century, and is the native language of over 300 million people. The official language of 26 states, and the liturgical language of the religion of Islam. So the topic meets the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this automated portals is less useful in every respect than the head article Arabic. Anyone who wants to build a curated portal which actually adds value for the reader can re-create the shell in seconds, simply by entering {{subst:Basic portal start page}} and saving ... so there is no benefit to anyone in keeping this automated spam.

So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal (at its previous name) had 7 daily pageviews, which does not illustrate that it is attracting large numbers of interested readers. (The head article has 2821 daily page views, but the total traffic to related articles is much higher.) Portals are basically an archaic way of using the Internet and Wikipedia, that exist because of one ancient historical mistake and a subsequent reasonable decision. The ancient historical mistake, that is so deeply rooted in the history of Wikipedia that it will not be corrected, is the inclusion of portals as a feature. The subsequent reasonable decision was not to delete the portal namespace, keeping the ones that we already have. However, creating portals in the hope that portal maintainers will come, or that portal maintainers are not necessary, is silly. Portals should, in my opinion, only be created by the portal maintainer. Otherwise they are just putting doors to nowhere in a system. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. The portal is a redundant fork of several navboxes.
  2. The portal's automatic creation warrant automatic deletion.
  3. Portals require active maintenance and curation to fulfil their purpose.
  4. The topic is potentially broad enough, so this is without prejudice to curated recreation, but, as evidenced by the page views, the portal's dire state already makes users browse in a different way.
SITH (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Use of wormwoodEdit

Draft:Use of wormwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Use of Artemisia absinthium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Yche3321/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Wormwood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Yche3321/OLES2129/draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is already an article about Artemisia absinthium. AfC reviewers have made multiple attempts through decline messages to advise the editor that they should improve that article rather than create a new one. Unfortunately the editor has ignored those messages and is editing tendentiously. The draft is not written neutrally and makes unsubstantiated claims about medical uses of wormwood. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Performing artsEdit

Portal:Performing arts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another spammy automated portal created by @The Transhumanist. It is a mixture of redundancy and indiscriminate link-harvesting.

This one consists of 3 elements:

  1. a slideshow of articles, drawn from two pages: Outline of performing arts and the navbox {{Performing arts}}
  2. a slideshow of images, drawn from the head article Performing arts
  3. a list of subtopics
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software relevant to this nomination

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software have made some features of automated portals redundant. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incongnito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on {{Performing arts}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article Performing arts, so try clicking on any image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny slideshow on Portal:Performing arts.

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

  1. the slideshow of article lead excerpts is redundant to the built-in preview of all Wikipedia pages. If you want a preview of the articles linked from Outline of performing arts or {{Performing arts}}, just go the page and put your mouse over the link. Instant preview! (works only if you are not logged in. Like ordinary readers, for whom we create Wikipedia)
  2. if you want a slideshow of the images in the head article Performing arts, then go to the article and click on any image. Automatic slideshow! (again, works only if you are not logged in. Like ordinary readers, for whom we create Wikipedia)
  3. The list of subtopics on the bottom of the page is just an indiscriminate copy of Category:Performing arts, without the subcategories. So indiscriminate that 22 of the 95 pages listed are either tagged or assessed as stubs, which should not be displayed on a portal.
    This is the same approach as used in a host of portals recently discussed at MFD, including Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks, and two MFDs opened yesterday Australian literature and Ships.
    This process was described by TTH is his update #026, 20 Jan 2019 as harvesting.

Yes, Performing arts is a broad enough topic to satisfy the WP:POG requirements for creating a portal. But this spammy page is not worth keeping. If anyone does want to spend the tine researching the topic and building areal portal which genuinely tries to add value to readers and meet the WP:PORTAL primciple "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects" ... then they can create a new framework in seconds. Meanwhile no needs to waste the time of readers with this spam.

So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - The portal has an average of 3 daily page views. (That includes occasional bot views.) The head article has 908 average daily page views, which is not a measure of interest in the topic because there are many subtopics that are explored without going through the head article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - A portal that has 3 daily page views either is using volunteer time to be maintained, or is not using volunteer time to be maintained. Besides, I have my doubts about whether Outlines are useful. But we are discussing the deletion of a portal that contains an outline, not the deletion of an outline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Low page views show readers are not interested in portals which are not properly maintained.
  2. Portals require active maintenance to fulfil their raison d'etre.
  3. Much of the content is forked from extant sources or seemingly irrelevant, which is to be expected when a drive-by portal is created without thought for how categorisation works.
SITH (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 18, 2019Edit

Portal:RhetoricEdit

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

Non-portal portal abandoned since 2006 as a visual and textual mess. It's jsut a static page with a few boxes of essays.

Created[37] in January 2006‎ by Mattbarton.exe (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2015, and made only 13 edits after 2006.

Mattbarton.exe also created most the sub-pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Rhetoric, but their current horrible state seems to be the work of sevral editors. Note in particular:

I doubt that rhetoric is in theory a big enough to satisfy 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". But in practice it has not only lacked maintainers, it has lacked anyone willing to do even emergency surgery. And in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 4 pagviews per day.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Redlinks that have been redlinks for a very long time indicate that no one is likely to fix anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Quebec CityEdit

Portal:Quebec City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal, on Quebec City. Two boxes, one of articles, one for biogs, but each has only two items, and none has been updated since 2010. This is just a set of 4 old content forks

Created[40] in June 2010 by Mathieugp (talk · contribs).

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

... but all are unchnaged since 2010. /Selected biography/2 still proclaims that Pauline Marois is leader of the PQ, a role she left in 2014.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 updates. That's the nearly-universal problem with these collections of content forked sub-pages: they have to be maintained, but rarely are.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Quebec City.

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not attracted maintainers for 9 nine years, and the city has a population of only 500,000 ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as BHG says. But does User:Mathieugp have any comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question what does with prejudice against re-creation mean exactly? If in two, five or ten years from now, someone with time on their hands want to recreate the portal, enrich it, automate the rotation of contents, etc., what will happen? Will this hypothetical someone be in trouble? I do not have time to work on updating the portal right now, but I do not see why Quebec City should not have its portal like so many other North-American cities. I do not see that any city-portal is very active anyway if you remove bots from the equation. ;-) Mathieugp (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mathieugp, some other city portals are indeed a poor condition. That is why dozens of the worst of them have deleted at MFD in recent weeks. Sadly, this falls into the v poor category ... and the fact that some other not-as-bad-portals have not yet been deleted is no reason to keep this one.
After 9 years of neglect, one clearly fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.
Similar wording has been in place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.
So ... you haven't had time to maintain this for 9 years, and still don't have time. Nobody else has maintained it. That's reason not to waste readers's time with it.
If someone wants to re-create this in future, they will need to go to DRV and show new evidence, or that portal policy has changed etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Organic chemistryEdit

Portal:Organic chemistry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal, on the Organic chemistry. Static page, with several boxes of selected biog etc, but no lists of content other than navboxes, no rotation of content and no slidehows. Almost no updates since 2007.

Created[41] in December 2007 by Chaos (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2017.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Organic chemistry shows a modest set of sub-pages, but the set of content pages appears to be static:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Organic chemistry and its navbox {{Organic chemistry}}.

This is clearly a broad topic, so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - When I took this course, one of its secondary purposes was for unqualified pre-medical students to fail in their sophomore year,so that they could change majors. This portal seems to have failed. It has 18 daily pageviews, contrasted with 1485 for the main article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Malayalam cinemaEdit

Portal:Malayalam cinema (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A non-portal about Malayalam cinema.

Created[45] in December 2017‎ by King Prithviraj II (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet since July 2018.[46]

Nothing here except two boxes, listed in the v short list at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Malayalam cinema:

I don't know how broad a topic this is, so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mahayana BuddhismEdit

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

Abandoned portal, on the Mahayana branch of Buddhism. Static page, with several boxes of selected biog etc, but no lists of content, no rotation of content or slidehows. Almost no updates since created in 2008.

Created[47] in March 2008 by Emishi (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2012.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Mahayana Buddhism shows a non-trivial set of sub-pages, but most of it is formatting or organisation rtaher than content. The set of content pages appears to be:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Mahayana and its sidebar navbox {{Mahāyāna Buddhism}}.

This is clearly a broad topic, so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal has daily 11 pageviews. As BHG says, it is a broad area. Not every broad area will attract a portal maintainer. As I noted about Jesus and Christianity, the ability to present a reasonable summary of a religion is likely to require extensive education in the subject. (The more breadth and depth a subject has, the more education is required to be able to distill its knowledge.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:NishapurEdit

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

Another abandoned portal, on the Iranian city of Nishapur. Static page, with one selected one biog etc. Very few updates since created in 2011.

Created[53] in April 2011‎ by Chyah (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry since 2017.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 90 updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Nishapur. The article is a poor C-class, but still much better than the portal.

The city of Nishapur has a long history, dating back to the 3rd century, but Category:Nishapur shows that Wikipedia has little coverage of it. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... and this has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 6 pageviews per day.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creating it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Delete - Another portal by a blocked sockpuppet. I concur with BHG that this is not a broad subject area. The head article has 204 daily page views, which is one of the lowest numbers we have seen for a head article. No point in trying to develop a portal. (My own opinion is that portals should reflect the enthusiasm of the portal maintainer more than the subject, but in this case the specific subject area won't support a portal even with an enthusiastic maintainer.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Portal:KosovoEdit

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

Yet again, an abandoned portal. This one has been abandoned since 2008 as a static page, with one selected article, one biog etc. Mostly the same topics as 11 years ago.

Created[56] in January 2008‎ by Prevalis (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2014.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Kosovo and its navbox {{Kosovo topics}}.

As a limited-recognition state, Kosovo could be considered in theory to be a broad topic, despite its population of only two million. But WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... and in practice this has not attracted maintainers, and in 2018 it got only 13 pageviews per day.

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

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

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

This raises the bar quite high for anyone considering making a new portal on this topic. But there should probably be a wider discussion on that ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creating it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I am not sure why this partially recognized country portal should be deleted with prejudice, but it should be deleted. The portal had 10 daily pageviews in January and February (and 13 daily in 2018). The interest may be there. The head article had 6104 daily pageviews in Jan-Feb 2019. But there needs to be a more general discussion of the labor-intensive nature of miniature Main Pages before any of these deleted portals are re-created, as I have tried to address in The Problems with Portals. In the meantime, delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MitochondriaEdit

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

Yet another abandoned portal. This one has been abandoned since 2015 as a static page, with one selected article, one biog etc. All the same topics as 4 years ago.

Created[61] in July 2015‎ by Aogarlid (talk · contribs).

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 45 consecutive updates.

This seems to be 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 has not attracted maintainers, and in 2018 it got only 6 pageviews per day.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creating it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:National Basketball League (Australia)Edit

Portal:National Basketball League (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A non-portal about the National Basketball League (Australia), abandoned since 2006. Just a two-line intro, one navbox, and category listing.

Created[64] in April 2006‎ Jasrocks (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:National Basketball League (Australia) shows that there are some sub-pages, but they seem to have been removed from display, since they date from 2006.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article National Basketball League (Australia) with its navboxes {{National Basketball League (Australia)}} and {{NBL seasons}}.

This topic may be broad enough to support a portal, if anyone wants to create and maintain something which actually adds value for the reader.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is the least accessed portal I have checked yet. Between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019 it had 42 pageviews. That isn't average pageviews. That is total pageviews, an average of (less than) 1. The head article has an average of 546 daily pageviews. I suggest deletion with prejudice against re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Messianic JudaismEdit

Portal:Messianic Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More from the Sea of Abandoned Portals. This one has been abandoned since 2007 as a static page, with one selected article, one biog etc. All the same topics as 12 years ago.

Created[65] in May 2007‎ by ChristTrekker (talk · contribs).

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 140 consecutive updates.

This seem to be a narrow topic. Messianic Judaism originated only in the 1960s and 1970s, and has only about 350,000 adherents worldwide. And in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 4 pageviews per day.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But despite the effort put in here, the result is a much less effective introduction to the topic than the head article Messianic Judaism.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against re-creating it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Long-abandoned manual portal. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A not notable page(s), not needed. A small sub-group of a sub-group. Contains biased information. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Has 4 average daily pageviews, as opposed to 829 daily pageviews for the head article. Not being maintained. But does User:ChristTrekker have a comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ApplesEdit

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

An automated navbox-cloned portal, redundant to its components. There is no non-automated version to restore.

Created[70] in August 2018‎‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH).

This is one of the last few dozen remaming fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. It draws its "selected articles" lists solely from 2 navboxes:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the article Apples.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on any of the pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on any of the articles listed above.

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow).

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Apple and its navboxes {{Apples}} and {{Crabapples}}. This may be seen as a broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG, and a curated portal may actually add value for readers.

So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

Note that this portal was discussed in March 2019 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples, a rather fractious discussion of 5 portals, which ended as a bit of WP:TRAINWRECK. It was closed with varied outcomes for the 5 pages, including a "keep" for Portal Apples. I am renominating it to allow separate discussion of the Apples portal, in light of new understanding of the redundancy of automate portals, and TTH's belated acknowledgement of that redundancy. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the participants at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples: @Atsme, Bilorv, Cactus.man, Catfurball, CoolSkittle, DexDor, Finnusertop, Gazamp, Kusma, Legacypac, Levivich, Northamerica1000, Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, Pppery, Premeditated Chaos, Pythoncoder, Robert McClenon, SMcCandlish, SportingFlyer, Thryduulf, UnitedStatesian, and WanderingWanda, and the closer @Amorymeltzer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - At the time of the debate over Portal:Crabapples, I said that I was not sure that Portal:Apples was needed, and I still think that. This portal averaged 16 daily pageviews in the 1 January - 28 February baseline, as compared to Apple with 3219 daily pageviews. The real problem with portals in general and with portal discussions is that there are two statements made in the portal guidelines that are both valid, but only one is cited in deletion discussions. The guidelines state that portals should be about broad topic areas that will attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers, and that a portal is a miniature Main Page. Yes. So far, so good. Portal defenders, and even portal critics, often simply acknowledge that a topic is a broad area, and conclude that it deserves a portal, or that at least the deletion should be without prejudice. So far, so good. But a portal should be a miniature Main Page, and the Main Page is a labor-intensive effort. Multiple Wikipedians devote non-trivial volunteer time to making the Main Page interesting. A portal is only justified if one editor, the portal maintainer, is planning to devote non-trivial volunteer time to making the portal interesting. That is the question about this portal. That is the question about portals in general. Delete this portal unless a volunteer is offering to maintain it. This portal wasn't even created by someone who thought for a few hours that she would make the portal interesting. This portal was created robotically, and that just wastes pixels, and wastes volunteer time looking for a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I buy Robert McClenon's argument, and I've previously suggested these should be upmerged into a Portal:Fruit or Portal:Fruits, anyway. To me, this is too much like Portal:Spaghetti; it's too specific. Even if someone did want to maintain it, it's dubious it could actually be made interesting.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per the above Atsme Talk 📧 16:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice to recreation as per User:BrownHairedGirl. Gazamp (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't need an autofork of two navboxes anymore than we need an autofork of one navbox. Levivich 17:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, per RMC, whose comment is perfectly argued. At best, should be upmerged to Portal:Fruit. ♠PMC(talk) 00:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Robert McClenon has put the issue very clearly; portals need committed maintenance, preferably by an active WikiProject. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MillenniumEdit

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

Narrow-scope portal based on Millennium (TV series), which ran for only three years in the late 1990s.

Fails 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) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not a popular portal at 7 daily pageviews. Not a popular head article at 453 daily pageviews. Does User:Grapple X have a comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cognitive scienceEdit

Portal:Cognitive science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another automated portal, redundant to its components. There is no non-automated version to restore

Created[71] in September 2018‎ ‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH)

This is one of the last few dozen remining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. It draws its "selected articles" lists solely from 2 articles:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the article Cognitive science.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on any of the pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on any of the other articles listed above.

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow).

This may be seen as a broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG ... So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete with prejudice to re-creation. "Breadth" doesn't always mean readers. The head article has only 770 daily pageviews, which is better than the 3 daily pageviews for the portal. We need an article on the subject (and on a few million other subjects), and we have an article. We don't need a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MontrealEdit

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

Another catch from the Sea of Abandoned Portals. This one has been abandoned since 2005 as a static page, with one selected article, one biog etc. All the same topics as 14 years ago.

Created[72] in July 2005‎ Larineso (talk · contribs), over a month before the portal namespace was created.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 165 consecutive updates.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 12 pageviews per day, compared with 5,126 views per day for the head article Montreal.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But despite the effort put in here, the result is a much less effective introduction to the topic than the head article Montreal with its navbox {{Montreal}}.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked sub-pages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages (see e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Portal:Geophysics).

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

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

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

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can work on this one ...would like to point out that WP:POG#How_often_to_update? is not based in reality as 90 percent of portals dont meet that criteria and automated portals are being deleted ...time to look at that guideline that is not based in reality. Will redo portal after deletion as the coding is very very old.--Moxy 🍁 13:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: I tend to the view that the high proportion of non-update portals reflects the very poor quality of portals as a whole, rather than a flaw in the guideline.
And it's not true that all automated portals are being deleted. The fully-automated clones are being deleted, but there is no deprecation of the automatic transclusion of leads from articles (that's much better than the diabolic farm of content-forked sub-pages), and no deprecation of rotations of selected articles.
However, now that each navbox has built-in preview, it is better for the article selection in a portal to avoid topics which are already in a relevant navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The main problem with this thinking is that 60 percent of our readers don't see navbox and out of the 40 percent left only 2 percent will ever scroll to the bottom of a page to see said box that has a preview. Best to assume not all navigate the same way or can all see the same thing...so best to give options to our readers when it comes to article navigateion. That said I agree portals did not workout as the community though they would but we have them so let work out real guidelines that reflect what's actually going on with portals. Transclusion of a lead or random article in no real way affect the quality of a portal....care in selection of articles that represents the beas we have to offer about a topic is what we are really looking for in portals.....this transclusion stuff is what got us here in the first place.-Moxy 🍁 01:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy: No need to scroll anywhere to see that a link has a preview. Just mouseover.
If you mean scroll to the bottom of a page to find the a navbox, then the same applies to the portal link.
But the big issue is search. Good search is what killed most web portals in the late 90s, and it's still what makes portals largely redundant.
If the discussions can produce guidelines on how to make a portal which genuinely adds value, then fine. But we still don't need to keep this abandoned portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - To add to the discussion between User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Moxy, what hasn't been addressed much in portal deletion discussions is that a portal is a miniature Main Page, and the Main Page is a labor-intensive effort. Any new portals, and any portals that are kept, should either be intended to be labor-intensive efforts, like the Main Page in miniature, or experiments in automation to see if the work associated with the Main Page can be reduced. If a portal doesn't fit into either of those categories, it isn't useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:HealthEdit

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

Abandoned, static portal. Basically unchanged since 2006.

This is one of the oldest portals. It was created[77] by Violetriga (talk · contribs) in February 2005 as redirect to Personal life‎, 6 months before the portal namespace was created. In December 2005‎, Go for it! (talk · contribs) converted[78] the page to an actual portal.

However, it has never been developed, and none of its incarnations come anywhere near satisfying the WP:PORTAL principle "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Health.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Health shows a small set of one of each type. By July 2017, they were so outdated that @Metropolitan90 nominated the three content-fork sub-pages for deletion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Health and fitness/Selected fitness article, noting that the "selected" articles in this portal in the subjects of fitness, nutrition, and biochemistry were chosen in January 2006, copied from the respective articles Physical fitness, Healthy diet, and Cholesterol as they were at that time, and have not been significantly updated or replaced since then. That is, those three articles have been displayed on the portal for the last 11 years, rather than being rotated with other fitness, nutrition, or biochemistry articles -- and not only that, but they're being displayed with their text from 2006, even though the writing style of at least the former two has improved considerably over the years. None of the three articles is or has ever been a Featured article in terms of quality.

Metropolitan90 proposed I would like to see these three portal subpages deleted, and then, if there are people interested in maintaining this portal, they can use Template:Random portal component, or a similar method, to select a rotating choice of higher-quality articles to display, instead of keeping the same articles in place for years at a time.

The discussion closed as "no consensus", and the 00:43, 24 August 2018‎ version was stil using the same outdated, content-forked, sub-pages, each of which still displays the 2006 topic:

Later on 24 August 2018‎, @The Transhumanist (TTH) converted[82] the portal to a fully-automated clone of Portal:Contents/Overview/Health and fitness, using the following code to build its "selcetd articles" list from that page: {{Transclude linked excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-3 | files=1 | limit=15 | more= | Portal:Contents/Overview/Health and fitness | }}

That is clearly pointless duplication, so today I reverted[83] to the last pre-automated version.

Now we are back where we were when Metropolitan90 MFDed the sub-pages 2 years ago. Heath s clearly a broad topic, which should in theory satisfy 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". But in pratice, this one has been neglected for 14 years, so it abysmally fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.

Similar wording has been in place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.

It is very disappointing that some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of licence to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just becuase the scope is broad enough. POG is very clear that scope is a necessary condition, but an insufficient one: the portal must also be maintained.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Once this abandoned relic and its outdated, content-forked sub-pages have been deleted, it may be appropriate to redirect the title to Portal:Contents/Overview/Health and fitness. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Human bodyEdit

Portal:Human body (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A hugely ambitious portal which after 9 years has never worked.

Created[84] in January 2010‎ by Amol.Gaitonde (talk · contribs), it was tagged for speedy deletion[85] in Octber 2010. That was declined, but in March 2011 it was listed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human Body by @Jj98 as a Dead portal, contains a lot of redlinks in subpages. The MFD was closed as "keep" after a offer[86] by @Moxy to fix it, but the closer seems to have overlooked that Moxt withdrew the offer[87].

Some work was done therafter, but there was no significant change until June 2018, when @Tom (LT) did a lot of restructuring over a 2-day period.[88] Subsequent chnages tweaked formatting, but it is still roughly as Tom left it.

The current version has wisely abandoned most of the sprawling set of sub-pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Human body.

Howver, despite Tom's hard work, it's still a bit of a mess:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But despite the effort put in here, the result is a much less effective introduction to the topic than the head article human body with its navbox {{Human systems and organs}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. Template:International volleyball or on any of the other pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on the article human body, or any ogf the other articles above.

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

The human body is a braod topic, so in theory it coukd satisfy 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". But in practice, the last 9 years have shown that it has not attracted enough editors willing to commit the huge amount of work needed to make a portal here which succeeds in adding value for readers. In Jan–Feb 2019, this portal got an average of 43 pageviews per day, which placed it at #197 of the ranking of all 1,214 portals by pageviews. But that reflects the significance of the topic rather than the ppopuarity of the portal: the head article human body got 4,542 daily pageviews in the same period. The comparative graph of views for portal and article is grim.

But there is always some remote possibility that some group of editors may come forward to do a lot of hard work on this ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts. Thanks BrownHairedGirl for this thoughtful nomination. I have opinions on both sides of the spectrum here so just want to put them into writing. Firstly, I do think this page is notable and general enough in topic to become a portal. It also receives quite a lot of views as mentioned above, and contains a fair amount of content. On the other hand, as mentioned above this portal was a mess, and I've done what I can to fix it up, tidy it up, automate things. I have significant concerns about many of the non-automated content (eg DYKs) which are not sourced and potentially incorrect or at least quite sensationalist, and I don't think this portal does a very good job of communicating its content or educating or helping readers. It's not finished and certainly not perfect, but I don't think these are technically reasons to delete. So I will sit over on a fence on this one, and look forward to hearing what the community feels about this page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANAT notified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
My feelings are similar to Tom's. I wish I could offer up a solution, but I don't have one. For example, I don't have the time to work on it and see what I can do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) and Flyer22 Reborn: I think that the problem here is one common to many portals: this is major topic on which a valuable portal could in theory be made, but in practice there is not and never has been a group of editors with sufficient subject knowledge, technical skill and time to make something which comes anywhere near achieving those goals.
That's no criticism at all of the editors involved. It's the simple reality that building something like this is usually done by commercial publishers who devote a lot of specialist resources to it, which en.wp portals don't have.
There is a similar failing with the attempts to build portals as weekly or monthly magazines. Print mags are expensive, because a lot of hard work is required to produce them ... and few if any en.wp portals have those resources.
Consider e.g. the Main page, which is type of portal. It is sustained by a massive editorial team. Consider just Today's Feature Article: huge effort goes into assessing each FA and reviewing it, and the WP:TFA team alone has four busy co-ordinators. DYK is the product of a similarly huge team effort. But sadly, a lot of portals are based on the false assumption that a similar model can be sustained for a much narrower topic.
Those are the conceptual flaws of most en.wp portals. The only genuinely viable model I see is the lists-of-key-topic style of portal which @Bermicourt has adapted from the German wiki for a dozen or so portals such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Portal:Harz Mountains. Those are quite easy to maintain, and do genuinely add value. The rest are over-reach. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
PS I agree about the DYKs. 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 these portalspace lists lose the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.
Sadly, this junk is replicated across hundreds of portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete - Looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body shows that nothing has changed. User:Looie496 said then that portals were a failed concept, and that hardly anyone looks at them. It is still true that hardly anyone uses portals. This portal has 43 daily pageviews, which is better than most, as opposed to 4542 daily pageviews for the head article. And it never was maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:VolleyballEdit

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

A navbox-cloned automated portal, redundant to its components.

Created[90] in February 2016‎ by Mmhuang (talk · contribs), but was just a load of redlinks. Per WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Volleyball, it was redirected[91] in April to the article Volleyball. In 4 March 2019‎ it was re-created[92] by Bhunacat10 (talk · contribs) as a fully-automated navbox-cloned portal. The redirct has been restored twice, but each time Bhunacat10 has reverted to the navbox-clone.[93][94]

This is one of the last fully-automated portals to be created. It is one of only a few dozen remaining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. Most of the portals built off a single navbox were deleted at two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals. Over a thousand other automated portals have been deleted in other MFDs.

However, further analysis has shown that many other types automated portals are also redundant, including this one.

It draws its "selected articles" list solely from the lists on a set of 9 navboxes:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the images displayed in a series of articles:

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. Template:International volleyball or on any of the other pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on the article Volleyball, or any of the other articles above.

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month "New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow)."

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Volleyball. Volleyball is a popular sport, so it could in theory meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, creating portals which actually add value for readers requires some effort in curation and selection, rather than just telling a script to harvest pages randomly from a set which already has excellent navigation, previews, and image galleries. I thought that this principle had been very well-established at hundreds of MFDs in recent months, but evidently Bhunacat10 wants another discussion, so here we are.

I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not "another" discussion: it is in fact the first discussion of the present portal, which was created in a totally new form in March of this year. The MfD from 2017 is of no relevance. OK, fire away: Bhunacat10 (talk), 11:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bhunacat10, it's yet another discussion of one of the flood of pointless, redundant, automated pseudo-portals. How many hundreds of such discussions do we need before you overcome your WP:IDHT issues? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete with silver bullets and with prejudice against re-creation. - This is a zombie portal. It was already killed once, and has been brought back from the dead. This portal has the highest ratio of pageviews between the head article and the portal that I have seen yet. The head article has 5679 daily pageviews. The portal has 2 daily pageviews. This portal is an undead creature. Get rid of it, and do not leave the option for it to come back. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:GreenlandEdit

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

Abandoned non-portal. There's nothing here excerpt an excerpt of the lead of the head article Greenland, the navbox {{Greenland topics}} and the category tree of Category:Greenland.

Created[95] in June 2013‎ by Hazhk (talk · contribs).

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this adds precisely nothing to the head article Greenland and is navbox {{Greenland topics}}.

The list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Greenland shows that there is Portal:Greenland/Selected article/1 and Portal:Greenland/Selected article/2. Neither is used in the portal, but while they could be added, it would be pointless, because the two topics are Nuuk (capital of Greenland) and Flag of Greenland. Both a linked from the infobox in the head article, so their inclusion would still add no value for readers.

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

But despite its huge landmass, the country of Greenland has a tiny population of only 56,480 in 2013. That doesn't make it much of a broad topic, and it has not attracted maintainers in the last 6 years.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. head article Greenland and on {{Greenland topics}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on any of the articles listed above Greenland

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow).

I usually propose that abandoned country portals should deleted "per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time". But in this case, the tiny size make it less easy to add significant value beyond the head article, and unlikely that a portal would be maintained. A few more randomly chosen content content-forked sub-pages would be of much less value to readers than creating articles, e.g. to fill in the many redlinks on List of mountain ranges of Greenland.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against recreation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Contrary to what some might believe, Greenland is not a country. If that is actually common knowledge, then I guess I've been the odd one out because I only learned that fact last year. Also, it's a well known fact that Greenland is cold and full of ice (not green as the name implies). This is my way of saying, a territory of only about 55,877 (1 January 2018)[1] (Greenland) is not likely to meet the breadth of scope requirements. tl;dr: It's cold and no one with an internet connection lives there. –MJLTalk 03:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I created this portal but I don't think it has a future. I am disappointed that there has been no maintenance or expansion within the past six year. Incidentally, Greenlanders do have internet access.[2] --Hazhk (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think that it matters whether Greenland is a country, that is, whether it has the three aspects of a country: a defined land area; a population; and a government that is fully recognized as sovereign by other sovereign governments. It has a large land area, a small population, and a government that isn't fully sovereign. However, that doesn't matter, because the idea that every country should have a portal, so that we need to wait for the portal maintainer, is magical thinking. The article gets 6632 daily pageviews, which is more than some countries get, possibly because this island is bigger than many countries. The portal gets 10 daily pageviews. Does anyone want to invest the substantial amount of volunteer time for a miniature Main Page? That is the real question about this portal and many of these portals. I think that the answer is No. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Performer portalsEdit

Portal:Eminem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Rihanna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Clash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Well, I was waiting for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy to be closed so we have more substantial precedent for additional music portals, but I can't wait any longer (parenthetical rant: why is there so much agita at WP:RFA if the resulting universe of admins is then completely incapable of closing deletion nominations that have any sort of nuance or depth of discussion? But I digress). These are all multi-page portals, but all are unmaintained and all fail WP:POG's breadth-of-subject-matter requirement. And as has been pointed out repeatedly elsewhere, WP:BLP concerns argue strongly against having any portal for a living person, or a group containing a living person, since the portal space is largely unmonitored. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete ..but should note these are not listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy .--Moxy 🍁 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - The answer is that the anti-admin editors at RFA don't want admins who will act decisively in cases like this, because those might also be admins who might block them for incivility. So experienced content creators who are wishy-washy about deletion get the mop. Also, admins who have clear views on portals, like User:BrownHairedGirl, will have already !voted and can't close the discussion. Does that answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Moxy - We know. We know. US was hoping to get the first batch resolved before opening another, and gave up. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - A comparison of the average daily pageviews for these portals and the average daily pageviews for the head articles is informative, and may illustrate another reason why portals for single performers or single performing groups are not useful. The comparisons are as follows:

Performer Portal Head Article

Eminem 13 19,275
Rihanna 16 14,713
Taylor Swift 9 17,722
The Clash 7 2,407

Typically the pageview ratio is approximately 100:1. That is, there are 100 times as many views to the head article as to the portal. The pageview ratios for the three current popular performers are in the range of 1000:1. There are 1483 times as many views for Enimem as for his portal, 920 times as many views for Taylor Swift as for her portal, and 1970 times as many views for Rihanna as for her portal. Popularity of a performer and of the article about the performer is not a predictor of popularity of a portal about the performer. Delete these portals with prejudice against re-creation of portals about these individual performers (and group). Popularity does not extrapolate to portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ColorEdit

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

Mini-portal abandoned since creation in 2009. It offers no added value to readers.

Created[96] in July 2009 by Scarce (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2011.

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Color shows few pages:

Since this edit[99] in August 2018 by @The Transhumanist (TTH), the image slideshow is drawn solely from the head article color. That is a redundant feature, per explanation below.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Color and its navbox {{Color topics}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on head article Color and on {{Color topics}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on Color.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 120 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is in theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of topics related to color, but this portal does nothing to help readers sample or navigate it. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal has 32 daily pageviews, which is more than most, but hardly means that a portal maintainer who won't show up is desperately needed. The head article has 2603 daily pageviews. Delete this portal without prejudice to someone in the future taking on a new Portal:Color as a miniature Main Page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AntibioticsEdit

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

Yet another automated portal, redundant to its components and prone to errors ... and based on mostly non-existent pages.

Created[100] in December 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH), aka the portalspammer, who only 9 days later boasted We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it.

This is one of the last few dozen remaining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. Most of the portals built off a single navbox were deleted two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals. Over a thousand other automated portals have been deleted in other MFDs.

However, further analysis has shown that many other types automated portals are also redundant, including this one.

It draws its "selected articles" list solely from 4 articles. And yes, 3 of the 4 are redlinked below, and have never existed. but the titles are as entered in the portal page by TTH[101]. I guess that when you are were racing against time to create 5,000 portals, a few seconds to check page existence is too much of a burden.

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the article Antibiotics.

I explain the redundancy below, but note also that harvesting links from articles can lead to errors in the form of unitended selections. For an example where this went horrinbly wrong, see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lusaka.

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

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

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow).

Antiobiotics might a broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG, though I have not checked. It could akso be viewed as a narrow topic which is copiously documneted, and can cause soem topics to fail 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". Th the lead of WP:POG, portals need to be maintained. Would a portal on one class of phramaceutical attract many maintainers?

But that question does not have to be answered now. So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal has 3 daily pageviews, as opposed to the head article, which has 2189 daily pageviews. Readers don't look for portals. Readers look for articles, links, categories, and articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:JesusEdit

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

A navbox-cloned automated portal, redundant to its components.

Created[102] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH), aka the portalspammer, who at the end of 2018 boasted "We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it)".

This is one of the last few dozen remaining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. Most of the portals built off a single navbox were deleted two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals. Over a thousand other automated portals have been deleted in other MFDs.

However, further analysis has shown that many other types automated portals are also redundant, including this one.

It draws its "selected articles" list solely from the lists on 4 other pages:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the articles Jesus.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. Template:Jesus footer ... or any of the other pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on the article Jesus.

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow).

Jesus is obviously a a broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG. It would overlap significantly with Portal:Christianity, so if a curated portal on this topic was to be created, care would need to be taken to avoid overlap.

But there is no reason in principle why there shouldn't be a Portal about Jesus, so long as it was actullay curated and build to add value to the head article, per the WP:PORTAL core principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This automated clone is less useful in every respect than the head article Jesus.

I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time.

And yes, I am surprised too. I didn't expect to be MFDing this one, until I looked at how it was made. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are many other articles and portals on same subject rendering this a duplicate. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The portal has 12 daily pageviews. The head article has 10,209 daily page views. Summarizing what is believed by Christians about Jesus isn't a topic that is taken lightly; it is central to the education of Christian clergy. It shouldn't be done robotically. Any effort by a lay or clerical Christian to develop the portal will no doubt be criticized by other Christians, because Christianity is heavily divided into denominations. Delete this portal, without prejudice. (There are already too many denominational Christian prejudices.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - By way of comparison, Portal:Christianity has 119 daily pageviews during the 1 Jan 2019 - 28 Feb 2019 baseline period, which is the highest pageview rate that I have seen while following these portal discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:FraudEdit

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

A navbox-cloned automated portal, redundant to its components.

Created[103] in February 2019‎ by Mr. Guye (talk · contribs).

This is one of the last few dozen remaining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. Most of the portal built off a single navbox were deleted two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals. Over a thousand other automated portals have been deleted in other MFDs.

However, further analysis has shown that many other types automated portals are also redundant, including this one.

It draws its "selected articles" list solely from the lists on 4 other pages:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the articles Fraud and Forgery.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. Category:Deception or on Template:Fraud ... or any of the other pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on any of the pages listed above.

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow).

Fraud may be seen as a broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG ... So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - A good sorceress knows to adjust her incantation to address the type of spirit to be dispelled. A baseline of 1 March - 30 April was used for the pageview metrics. The portal was viewed an average of 5 times daily. The head article was viewed an average of 1216 times daily. That does not count related articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Transport in PakistanEdit

Portal:Transport in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A navbox-cloned automated portal, redundant to its components.

Created[104] in January 2019‎ by Pakieditor (talk · contribs).

This is one of the last few dozen remaining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) and others. It draws its "selected articles" list solely from 4 navboxes:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from the head article Transport in Pakistan.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. head article Fiction and its navboxes. ... or any of the other pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on any of the articles listed above Fiction, Fantasy, Science fiction, Crime fiction

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). It's a pity that despite the acknowledgements, he still leaves it to others to identify and remove his automated spam.

This may be seen as broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG ... So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Because this portal was created in January, it was necessary to adjust the baseline period to February and March 2019. In this period there were 62 pageviews. That is not an average. That is the total, for an average of 1 daily. The head article, in the same time, had 149 pageviews, but that does not include views of the articles that were used to build the portal. We don't need a portal that is seen once a day. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess that is only the option I have. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Pakieditor (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:FictionEdit

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

A navbox-cloned automated portal, redundant to its components.

Created[105] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH), aka the portalspammer, who at the end of 2018 boasted We were racing against time to create 5,000 portals by the end of the year (just for the heck of it.

This is one of the last few dozen remaining fully-automated portals, out of over 4,000 created by TTH. It draws its "selected articles" list solely from 4 navboxes:

It draws its "selected images" list solely from 4 articles:

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on e.g. head article Fiction and its navboxes. ... or any of the other pages listed above.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on any of the articles listed above Fiction, Fantasy, Science fiction, Crime fiction

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

This redundancy has been belatedly acknowledged by TTH, who wrote at the start of this month New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). It's a pity that despite the acknowledgements, he still leaves it to others to identify and remove his automated spam.

Fiction is obviously a very broad topic ... So I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - So what was the portal platoon trying to accomplish with the push past five thousand to ten thousand if portals were becoming obsolete? (Maybe they didn't know about the new features? Maybe they didn't know about links and categories? The last can't be, because they sometimes used categories to scrape portals together.) The portal has 15 daily pageviews. The head article has 891 page views, but that doesn't count the views of the child articles that were used to automate this golem. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

May 17, 2019Edit

Portal:Las VegasEdit

Portal:Las Vegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal abandoned since 2006. It offers no added value to readers.

Created[106] in January 2006‎ by Texaswebscout (talk · contribs).

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Las Vegas shows few pages:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Las Vegas and its navbox {{Las Vegas}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on head article Las Vegas and its navboxes.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on Las Vegas.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 150 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is in theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of topics related to Las Vegas, but this portal does nothing to help readers sample or navigate it. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't know whether this is a broad subject area; I don't know whether every large city is a broad subject area. Perhaps the portal and the article, like the city, are primarily tourist destinations. However, the portal has 12 daily pageviews, as opposed to 4574 for the head article. The features described by BHG provide much of the functionality that a portal is intended to provide, and the portal isn't being used much. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Electronic musicEdit

Portal:Electronic music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal abandoned since 2007. It offers no added value to readers.

Created[111] in August 2006‎ by MTN~enwiki (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2013.

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Electronic music shows few pages:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Electronic music and its navboxes {{Electronic music}}, {{Electronica}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on head article Time and its navboxes.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on Electronic music, via this link: Electronic music#/media/File:Telharmonium_-_Scientific_American_1907_(zoomed_400%,_brightened).jpg.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 140 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is in theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of topics related to electronic music, but this portal does nothing to help readers sample or navigate it. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't consider this a broad subject area in itself, but I think that BHG may be making that concession pro argumento anyway. This is a yet another unmainatained heritage portal, with 20 daily pageviews, as opposed to 1275 daily pageviews for the head article. The portal has just been sitting here doing nothing for years. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TimeEdit

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

Mini-portal abandoned since 2008, with some minor tweaks in 2018. It offers no added value to readers.

Created[117] in March 2007‎ by Vigeesh (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2016.

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Chromology shows a an initally encouraging set of pages, but most of it is just duplicates, and the rest is outdated:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Time and its navboxes {{Time topics}}, {{Time measurement and standards}}, {{Chronology}}, {{Time in religion and mythology}}, {{Time topics}} and {{Time in philosophy}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on head article Time and its navboxes.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it on Time, via this link: Time#/media/File:MontreGousset001.jpg.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 120 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is in theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of topics related to time, but this portal does nothing to help readers sample or navigate it. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal and Portal:Chronology largely overlap, but neither of them has attracted readers, although the topics have. This portal has had 45 daily pageviews (although some of that has been due to vandalism), and the head article has had 2616 daily pageviews. This portal is not being maintained. (The fact that it has been vandalized repeatedly is not a reason to Keep or Delete, only to watch it and to revert it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ChronologyEdit

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

Mini-portal abandoned since 2013.

Created[120] in August 2008‎ by Vanisheduser12345 (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2009.

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Chromology shows a slim set of pages:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Chronology and its navboxes {{Chronology}} and {{Time}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on head article Chronology and its navboxes {{Chronology}} and {{Time}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. There's no image gallery on this page, and only one image on the head article, but the technology means that the portal would not be improved by adding images.

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

So the first two selected articles are pointless, since both are listed in {{Chronology}}, where the built-in preview is avalable.

The third selected article is Phantom time hypothesis a piece of fringe conspiracy theory nonsense which should never have been let near the portal.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 70 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft with its two redundant articles and its conspiracy-fodder.

Yes, this is in theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of topics related to chrinology, but this adds nothing to the bad-but-not-quite-this-bad Portal:Time. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. But editors may prefer to delete it with prejudice. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As BHG says. This portal has had 15 daily pageviews, while the article Chronology has had 470 daily pageviews, but that isn't a useful comparison because many of the actual views have been of topics that were found by links or categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:EspionageEdit

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

Micro-portal abandoned since 2014. Just a static display of outdated content forks of the leads of 4 articles.

Created[125] in March 2011 by SunCountryGuy01 (talk · contribs), a multi-user account which has been indfinitely blocked since 2011 for a range of misconduct[126][127]

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Espionage just shows a static set of pages:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Espionage and its navboxes {{Espionage}}, {{Intelligence cycle management}}, and {{Soviet Spies}}.

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

  1. mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on head article Espionage and its navboxes {{Espionage}}, {{Intelligence cycle management}}, and {{Soviet Spies}}
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.

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

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of the spies, intelligence agencies, and espionage methods and technologies. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous incarnation. This portal had a previous, equally inglorious, incarnation. It was created in 2006, and discussed in 2011 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Espionage, where nominator pointed out that it hasn't been touched since 2006. The result was "speedy delete".
Pinging the participants in that MFD: @Sven Manguard, CJ, Sphilbrick, and TenPoundHammer, and the closer @Salvio giuliano. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • keep rather than starting from zero after TNT, i say let there be this skeleton so we could work on it later. I have been trying to work on WP:SPY, and WP:MAFIA; but all of a sudden I got very busy IRL. I will start working again on these two wikiprojects after two months, I mean thats when I can give them satisfactory time. And once the wikiproject is active again, the project members can take care of the portal too. On a sidenote, this discussion might give a little insight. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Usernamekiran: If you want to build a portal on this topic which would actually add value for readers, you would do much better to start from scratch, without this redundant structure of outdated content forks in an attempt to replicate features which are now built-in to all pages.
I am not sure what "discussion" you refer to in that link. I see no discussion there, just series of sections with one post each.
As to once the wikiproject is active again ... I think you mean "if" it revives. Most WikiProjects are abandoned rooms of tumbleweed, at WT:WikiProject Espionage#Who_is_active_at_WikiProject_Espionage? makes clear this one is no different. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: thats sad, but true; I hope I can clear the weed, and get the wikiproject active again. But are you sure nuking the portal would be better than transforming it? If thats the case, I am happy to see it getting bombed. And honestly speaking, it would take at least (if it happens) 6-7 months from now to make the wikiproject active again. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, @Usernamekiran. Absolutely sure. There is nothing here to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I will address the offer by User:Usernamekiran to rework this portal in a few months. The portal doesn't need reworking in order to assist readers in going beyond the head article to learn about espionage. The head article is very well linked to related articles, including about the vocabulary of spy-craft and the techniques of spy-craft. Readers who are interested in learning more about this interesting business would do better to navigate from the article than to use a portal. The portal has had an average of 10 daily pageviews, and the head article has had an average of 1,408 daily pageviews, and if the reader doesn't want to use links, they can use categories. (I haven't assessed how helpful the categories are. The links are very good.) If the portal is deleted, and Usernamekiran wants to start over using the skeleton, since this proposal is to delete without prejudice, it will be available at Requests for Undeletion. If you want to work on the portal now, I will support a Relist to see whether you are still interested and making some improvements to it in a week or two or three. BHG says that the skeleton is not useful, but if you want to try to put meat on it, I would support Relisting, and if you want to unearth the skeleton after it is buried, you can request it. In the meantime, I am ready to recommend a Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete @Usernamekiran Why not save it off-line, then when and if you revitalize the wiki project you'll have it ready to go. I understand you might argue that it's not hurting anything just sitting here but it sops up time because someone has to glance at it and think about it. That's time better spent on something useful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main article is not in great shape (and is tagged). Why would any reader want to get involved in a largely abandoned out-of-date WP portal on espionage, when the main WP article on the topic is in this poor state? Any editing resources in this area (which seem scarce) should be directed to updating/upgrading the main WP espionage article. Only after this has happened, will we have the credibility to entice a reader into a portal (nothwithstanding that this is under the assumption that such a portal is also up to date and maintained). Britishfinance (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to main article and its navboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Country musicEdit

Portal:Country music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Micro-portal abandoned since 2010. Just a static display of outdated content forks of the leads of 4 articles.

Created[133]] in 2010 by Moxy (talk · contribs), who also created the sub-pages.

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Country music just shows a static set of pages:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Country music.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of the artists, genres, albums, songs and awards. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers. The creator @Moxy is not maintaining it[137].

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As usual, the topic is popular, but not the portal. We are looking at 2,170 daily page views for the head article, and that doesn't count views made directly of articles about individual artists or groups, songs or albums, sub-genres, et cetera. We are looking at 12 daily page views for the portal, and the reason that doesn't count the subportals is that there aren't any subportals. The portal hasn't been maintained and so isn't providing a service to the readers, who are doing fine with articles, categories, links, and articles. If someone wants to develop a portal as a hobby, they are welcome to do so, but it isn't something that the readers need as a service. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Cold WarEdit

Portal:Cold War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned micro-portal.

Created[138] in August 2006‎ by Hires an editor (talk · contribs). It was never automated, but some formatting tweaks were reverted[139] in April 2019‎ by @BusterD in the belief that they were automation. (That seems ti be to be mistaken; they look to me like good cleanup).

Formatting aside, this portal is roughly is it was back in 2006. A few boxes, each with static content: there is no alternative either by a slideshow or by purging the page.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Cold War shows a sparse set:

So this portal fails in many ways.

  1. WP:PORTAL says that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Cold War, with its exceptionally comprehensive navbox {{Cold War}}. For readers who are not logged in (i.e. the vast majority), every link is previewed on mouseover. Try it yourself by right-clicking on {{Cold War}}, select "open in private window" (Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome), and watch how every one of the 362 links in that navbox gives you a preview.
    Then look at the built-in-slideshow in the head article. Either open a private window for Cold War, or just directly click this link: Kanye West#/media/File:Kanye_West_at_the_2009_Tribeca_Film_Festival.jpg.
  2. WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 150 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.
  3. The lead of WP:POG requires portals to be actively maintained. It currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.
Similar wording has been i place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.
It is very disappointing that some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of licence to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just becuase the scope is broad enough. POG is very clear that scope is a necessary condition, but an insufficient one: the portal must also be maintained.

This is clearly a broad topic, but breadth alone doesn't satisfy the guidelines. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As BHG says, a broad subject area is currently defined as a necessary but not sufficient condition to justify a portal. The broad subject area head article has 8,465 daily page views. The portal has 34 daily page views, which is higher than most portals. We are seeing that broad subject areas attract large numbers of interested readers for articles. They do not attract large numbers of interested readers for portals. Maybe nothing does. Maybe we should stop looking for broad subject areas and should conclude that portals may be a hobby for editors who want to maintain them. If so, that further means that the portal platoon's creation of thousands of portals was nonsensical pollution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Clearly unused or at least usurped by the MediaWiki preview function as evidenced by the page views.
  2. Lack of curation or working automation has resulted in failure of a portal's stated purpose of being a mini Main Page.
  3. No prejudice against thoughtful recreation with either manual curation or working automated curation to enable the fulfilment of its purpose, as the topic could plausibly be broad enough.
SITH (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Figure skatingEdit

Portal:Figure skating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft portal abandoned since 2007.

Created in October 2006 by Geoboe84 (talk · contribs), content added later in 2006 by Kolindigo (talk · contribs).

As can be seen from Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Figure skating, there i sonly one each type of subpage: one /Selected article, /Selected athlete, one /Selected picture.

The last change of content to any of them was in late 2007.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this static display of two excepts and one picture is a massively-degraded version of the head article Figure skating. It offers far more sampling of sub-topics, much better navigation thanks to Template:Figure skating, and far more pictures. Note for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal, let alone a purge-page-to-see-next gallery.

I assume that Wikipedia's coverage of figure skating is broad enough to sustain a portal, if and when some editors choose to actually build and maintain it. If and when that happens, it will take only seconds to build the framework from a clean sheet, so there is no point in continuing to waste the time of readers on this abandoned draft in the hope that 12 years of neglect is about to end.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as an abandoned heritage portal with no history of maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Broad enough topic, can be salvaged through editing and issues highlighted with tagging, so deletion is not necessary to clean it up per WP:ATD. WaggersTALK 12:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • By salvaged, @Waggers means "completely rebuilt from a blank sheet", because a set of 12-year-old content forks is no base from which to start building a portal which might actually add value for readers.
In the meantime, it is disruptive to continue to waste the time of readers by luring them to a page which has been abandoned for 12 years.
The notions which Waggers suggests of editing and tagging are implausible to the point of fantasy, because:
  1. There is no tag to identify long-term abandoned portals, and no category to track them, because the WP:WPPORT has never throughout its history engaged in any systematic quality-monitoring of portals
  2. Category:All portals currently contains 1,331 portals, of which 1,074 are in Category:Unassessed Portal pages. That's 81% of portals to which to no assessment rating has ever been assigned. The portals project has simply never done basic monitoring of quality, let alone tracking of specific problems, which is why hundreds of abandoned portals have rotted for up to 13 years
  3. Building a decent portal which would actually add value to readers takes time and research, and knowledge of the topic. Waggers has not identified any editor with the skills and commitment to build and maintain a portal on this topic.
For the last 2 months, I and other editors have worked in good faith to try to clear out the automated portalspam created in the last year, and ten the abandoned junk which has accumulated over a decade of neglect. It has been my hope throughout that this would leave a core of portals which add some value for readers, and could be built on. But if members of the portals project are going to oppose the cleanup of abandoned junk without a mechanism, plan, or topic-skilled editors to fix them, then it may be time to abandon this approach and simply propose mass deletion of most portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Can be more than adequately covered by Portal:Sports. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The above exchange between User:Waggers and User:BrownHairedGirl appears to be a canned dialogue, with a lengthy realistic reply to a good-faith but useless and time-wasting reliance of theory over practice. Perhaps Alternatives to Deletion needs clarification, because it is so often quoted by those arguing to keep something that is not useful and instead needs dynamiting. Waggers appears to be stating that the breadth of the topic is the only factor to consider in portal deletion, and that any portal on a broad topic should be "salvaged through editing and issues highlighted with tagging". What if the issues have been there for years, which they have? Is Waggers proposing that we keep hundreds of tagged unmaintained portals for more years? Who will be doing the editing? The Keep rationale by Waggers is in good faith but is otherwise unrealistic, and BHG has it addressed in more detail than should have been required (except that various portal advocates keep offering similar useless rationales). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Robert McClenon, that's a fair summary and goodness knows repeating the same conversation on multiple MfDs has been draining when a central discussion would be far more constructive. Suffice to say if the page had indeed been adequately tagged with no improvement over several years, I would probably support deletion on that basis, but that isn't the case here. WaggersTALK 15:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Waggers - I understand your argument that we need to wait a reasonable amount of time for a portal maintainer. I just find it, as User:BrownHairedGirl says, to be magical thinking. We aren't likely to find them just by tagging the portal. Editors don't come to Wikipedia to maintain portals. They come to Wikipedia to maintain articles. See WP:Waiting for Portal Maintainers. It is like waiting for Godot. The audience and the protagonists wait for two hours for Godot. Sometimes we have been waiting for portal maintainers for two years, sometimes for ten years. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Robert McClenon My view is that waiting alone is not enough. There are plenty of editors around who are interested in maintaining portals - I'm one of them but I'm not alone - and it doesn't hurt to ask around to see if someone would be willing to take it on before nominating for deletion. Deletion should be a last resort, but with so many of these nominations it seems no effort has been made to seek someone willing to make the necessary changes. Sure, if nobody's interested, then delete. But it's a simple courtesy to ask around a bit first, perhaps by posting at relevant wikiprojects (including the portals wikiproject). WaggersTALK 15:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
          • User:Waggers - Asking for portal maintainers is a good idea. The question is when to ask and how long then to wait for them. The possibility of finding a maintainer is why I deferred !voting on Portal:Nigeria to see if someone would come from WP:WikiProject Nigeria. Is there a WT:WikiProject Figure Skating? If so, let us ask, and response time from active WikiProjects is quick. I do take strong issue with your previous suggestion that the lack of a maintainer can be dealt with by normal editing and tagging. I also take issue with any related idea that this MFD should be closed as Keep or as No Consensus simply to look for a maintainer. If you think that finding a maintainer may take ten days, for instance, that is compatible with relisting this MFD. I take strong issue with closing this MFD because a portal maintainer will show up. How are you suggesting we look for a portal maintainer, and how long should we wait? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
            • We have already waited for 12 years. I think that's way more than enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Robert McClenon I think it's reasonable to ask at both wikiprojects (yes WT:WikiProject Figure Skating exists), with a timeframe measured in months or weeks (not days or years). The portals project has a huge scope and is very busy, and WT:WikiProject Figure Skating isn't hugely active (but not quite dormant) so I think it's reasonable to be fairly generous. Obviously that's just my opinion; it would be good to get a consensus based guideline set up. WaggersTALK 08:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
              • @Waggers, WikiProject Figure Skating was automatically notified 4 days ago, when Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Article alerts was updated[144] by bot. The project is almost inactive: WT:WikiProject Figure Skating has had only twelve edits in the last 12 months, and two of those 12 edits were to notify of this discussion. I see no reason to hang around and set up some bureaucratic process of keeping this abandoned page in limbo for months on the off-chance that the std notification process is not long enough.
                But even if a magicak maintainer does magically appear out of nowhere after 12 years of neglect, there is no point in keeping the existing pages. Per my comment below[145], anyone trying to build a half-decent portal would do much better to start afresh than to try to breathe life into this abandoned relic.
                I remain sad that Waggers is wasting so much of is time wandering around MFD looking for any pretext to keep on wasting readers's time with pointless, abandoned portals. As I have noted before, if Waggers's aim was portray the portals project as the Find-Any-Random-Excuse-To-Retain-Abandoned-Junk Project, he'd been doing a great job. Otherwise, less so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Further Discussion of Portal:Figure SkatingEdit
  • Comment - I think that the real disagreement is how long and how to wait for a portal maintainer. User:BrownHairedGirl has nominated this portal for deletion, without prejudice to re-creation. User:Waggers says that this portal should be kept, and that the need for a maintainer can be dealt with by editing and tagging. WT:WikiProject Figure Skating has now been notified. Waggers says that this MFD should be closed as Keep, because we can assume that the portal maintainer will show up within a few months. I assume (is this correct) that Waggers would agree to a Conditional Keep that specifies that the portal can be renominated in 60 days if it has no maintainer. I propose that the portal be relisted a maximum of twice, once on 17 May and once on 24 May. These portal MFDs are not being closed any sooner than that anyway. So I propose that, after relisting twice, unless it is being maintained, this portal be Deleted, without prejudice. I think that this narrows the scope of disagreement, which is that the issue is how and how long to wait for a portal maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon, that proposal would make some sense if upgrade was the path to achive:
  1. a portal which actually meets WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", i.e. a portal which adds some value for the reader
  2. A portal which is actually maintained
However, the skeleton we have here contains very little, just some massively-outdated content-forked sub-pages, and a framework based on the high maintenance model of content-forked sub-pages.
Posrtalspace is littered with the abandoned relics of portals built in this way. The evidence of the last decade shows that is simply too complex and too labour-intensive to sustain this model except in a very few cases where there is a highly-committed maintainer.
So if anyone wants to build a portal which actually adds value, they would do way better to start afresh, and build from the ground up a more sophisticated and more easily-maintained portal. There are several available models, but here is a pair of v difft examples: Portal:Geophysics and Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Even if a maintainer does show up, there is simply no need to retain this abandoned version. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Robert McClenon, I think that's a fair summary and 60 days seems like a reasonable timeframe. WaggersTALK 15:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


  • Comment - User:Waggers says that the need for portal maintainers should be dealt with by normal editing and tagging. I will point out that the usual Twinkle tagging capability is not enabled for portals. (I know that it can be done manually. I know.) Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
However, Waggers has never identified any of the following:
  1. Tags to mark an abandoned static portal
  2. Categories to track such abandoned static portals
  3. Active teams of editors fixing such portals
  4. Active recruitment of maintainers to ensure that these complex manual portals are maintained. I have just created Category:Portals with named maintainer and Category:Portals with no named maintainer. Automatically populated, so every page in Category:All portals should end up in one or the other when the pages purge in a day or two. Here's the live count of Category:Portals with no named maintainer: 1,094. purge to update the figure
So all this "tag it and await the fix" stuff looks like fantasy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Robert McClenon Quite right, there might be a way around it in the Twinkle preferences or it might need some config work elsewhere, but for now I'm afraid it is indeed a case of manually adding appropriate tags like {{expand list}}, {{expand section}}, {{update}} etc. to the pages/sections that need work - but that's not exactly an onerous task and certainly a better use of time and effort than a lengthy MfD discussion. WaggersTALK 15:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Waggers - I respectfully disagree that the tagging is a better use of time and effort than an MFD discussion. It is true that it uses less time and effort, but the tagging is a minor useless expenditure of time and effort. An MFD discussion is eventually closed, and either establishes that the page is to be kept, or actually gets rid of crud. As User:BrownHairedGirl asks, who will expand the lists, expand the sections, et cetera? Godot? The 19th Infantry Battalion? A unicorn? The spirits called by Glendower from the vasty deep? Willy on Wheels? The tagging is not an onerous task. The real harm that it does is the assumption that the spirits will come from the vasty deep. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Robert McClenon Simple: the same people that add to lists and expand sections in the other workspaces. Editors like us. Sometimes articles and other content sit for years with maintenance tags on them; that's no reason for them to be deleted. Wikipedia is a work in progress. WaggersTALK 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


    • @Waggers, how on earth do you think that adding to a page which almost nobody ever reads a cleanup tag which creates no relevant tracking category is going to make any difference?
This more fantasy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - So far we have four Delete !votes and the nomination, which make five, and one Keep !vote. The two viewpoints have been clarified:
      • The Keep position is to wait 60 days for a portal maintainer to volunteer themselves, and after 60 days another MFD can be posted.
      • A Delete editor has agreed that this MFD can be relisted twice, to run until 31 May, to wait for a portal maintainer. If there is no portal maintainer, the portal will be deleted without prejudice to a future portal.
      • I think that this summarizes and clarifies the views. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. An even better tag could be as follows:
A large crowd of maintainers will surely appear in the next future. Pldx1 (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there are some people who are willing to wait for a maintainer and some others who think this is a redundant portal. I think we need some more input to clear up which side is favoured.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Abandoned portal. Adds nothing over the WP main article+navbox (which thankfully are quote decent), but its lack of support will only depreciate the integrity of the main articles in the eyes of the reader. If somone really wants to take it on great; but that does not seem to be happening. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete, but without prejudice toward keeping it or recreating it if it's maintained. This is certainly a viable portal topic, but a 2006 draft no one does anything with is pretty pointless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The portal has an average of 18 daily pageviews, while the head article has an average of 974 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - What happened on 26 January 2019? The daily pageviews of the head article, Figure skating, peaked at 4,988 daily pageviews. Was there a major competition event? (I know that January is the northern winter, which is when figure skating is most popular, but all of January 2019 and February 2019 is the northern winter.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - In my opinion, the real question, as expressed in The Problem with Portals, is whether someone wants to maintain the portal as a hobby. A portal is a miniature Main Page, and a Main Page is labor-intensive. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:DddccxEdit

User:Dddccx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST. The only edits of this user were to create this page. Hasn't edited since (over 5 years). Jayjg (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Interesting. They apparently joined Wikipedia before it was even created. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Was about to be neutral, but it contains lies, as noted above. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Blank. Someone's test edits in a throwaway alt. account. Old, never-viewed, slightly problematic userspace pages should be blanked. Save MfD discussions for after an actual disagreement about the blanking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Blanked As SmokeyJoe says, a throw-away account making a handful of edits five+ years ago does not need to be discussed unless someone wants to unblank the page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BrittanyEdit

Portal:Brittany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Abandoned 2010-era portal with an extensive picture gallery but abysmal content. Broad topic, poor portal.

This portal was created[147] in December 2010‎ Chnou (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2016.

It has always been a manual portal using subpages, and was never subjected to the automated-fork-of-a-navbox mistreatment.

The list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Brittany shows an impressive collection of 45 selected pictures, nearly added in 2013 by XIIIfromTOKYO (talk · contribs).

However, it also shows:

And that's it. The result is barely more than a single-page leaflet, and what content it does have is content forks over 8 years old.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects", but this abandoned page is not enhanced. It's a pale shadow of the fine B-class head article Brittany, which actually offers a vastly better image gallery: the fine collection of images there is presented to ordinary readers (i.e. those not logged-in) as a click-for-next gallery, accessed simply by clicking on any image. So what might have been the portal's lone redeeming virtue is actually redundant.

Brittany is clearly a broad topic, so in theory it could pass the WP:POGrequirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... if it does attract portal maintainers, which would be a turnaround.

But if editors do decide to build and maintain this portal they would do better to start afresh. The tools available to build portals have been greatly improved in the last few years, and this antique framework would not be a good starting-point.

So I propose that this portal and its subpages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is yet another abandoned heritage portal that was never much of a portal and has no maintainer, but there was very little role for maintenance. So there isn't much to maintain without first dynamiting the old gate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The portal is maintained. New FA and GA are added regularly. Overall, nothing fall under WP:DEL-REASON. So Keep. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 07:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @XIIIfromTOKYO, :WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 consecutive content updates.
It is good that you have been updating the Recognized_content list, but that is not the core requirement of a portal, and in any case there have been only 5 updates in the last five years, most recently[148] in August 2017.
Please read WP:DEL-REASON. It says "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases". A portal which has failed for over 8 years to meet the core requirement of being updated regularly is clearly a severe case.
It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The WP:POG#How_often_to_update? is insane. Even a Monthly update doesn't make any sense. A portal is ment to "help to browse on a particular subject".
On top of that, the "subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section.". Clearly, the subject of the portal is wide enought, as it has more than 15'166 articles on the French Wikipedia. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Untrue statements in a deletion discussion are not a reason to delete, but they do not reflect well on the editors who make them, and the case for deletion was made before there were any false statements., Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. To quote BHG above: It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.
    This is where I will state my own journey with portals: I was one of those readers lured in by this portal way back in like 2016. I actually did read it (and had it in my watchlist), but nothing good ever came of it. Portal:Brittany/WikiProjects has had three redlinks for as long as I can remember, and Portal:Brittany/Related portals has consistently confused me if nothing else (just look at it). I have never understood why these glaring mistakes were allowed to sit by, but I always just assumed that maybe there was something I just didn't understand about the portal process. Since the cleanup, I at least brought it back to its pre-semiautomated state [149] with the intention of nominating it for deletion. I just always hoped that someone could carry the torch for the portal, but I am still not seeing this here. It just makes me sad tbh. :( –MJLTalk 18:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Sadly, @MJL, nothing good ever came of it was the story of about half the total number of portals when WP:ENDPORTALS closed. That's why TTH set about automating them. Right diagnosis, wrong solution.
I am MFDing only the worst of them. I'm skipping past the portals with sets of 6 to 10 subpages, and predominately only MFDing those which never got beyond the one-of-each state, or were only ever automated.
I don't see much effort being put into building new portals in these slots, because I have noted before, two newish features of Wikipedia render most portals redundant:
  1. mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  2. automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.
There was a consensus last year not to delete all portals, and that still stands. But the redundancy means that the neglect of portals over the last 14 years is going to get even worse, because there won't be many new editors wanting to work on redundant pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete These sub-national geographic division portals do not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. This region can be more than adequately coverd by Portal:France. UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Abandoned portal (the point of their existance is that they are maintained). Thankfully in this case, the main article+navbox are in decent shape, however, I see no longer-term future for this portal unless someone really takes a material interest in maintaining it, otherwise it will only decpreciate the quality of the other WP articles on this area, in the reader's eyes. Britishfinance (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The portal is very attractive but that's because the base article is in good shape, and that makes the portal redundant. The portal serves only as a content fork wasting time that could be spent on article improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article gets 1725 daily pageviews. The portal gets 9 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Related discussion on French Wikipedia: fr:Discussion Projet:Bretagne#Proposition_de_suppression_de_la_totalité_du_portail_Bretagne.... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gambit (2020 film)Edit

Draft:Gambit (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This exists in the mainspace as Development of Gambit. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect. This happens a lot. Standard process is to redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Once the MFD tag is put on the draft, it says not to blank or move it while the MFD is in progress, and a redirect is a back-door move. If an admin wants to close this as a speedy redirect, go ahead, but for an editor to do so is, in my view, disruptive. When both a draft and an article exist, the proper procedure is indeed to redirect the draft to the article, unless the draft is more complete, in which case the draft should be left in place to expand the article. It is a good-faith error to tag a draft for MFD because there is an article, but once the error happens, let it run. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No editor should do the redirect while this discussion continues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, okay. I've read the new guideline. It says that the speedy redirection can be done if the draft is exactly the same as the article. Is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No. It is way simpler. If the topic is better covered somewhere else, then redirect. Very often, the draft is a this slice of an article, a narrow content fork. "Redundant with respect to", not "exactly the same", is sufficient for redirection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I see what you mean. Can we discuss further at WT:Miscellany for deletion/Speedy redirect#Exact match?? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The topic is currently in mainspace at Gambit (unproduced film). I presume that it meets WP:NFF. The drafts should be disallowed as they are content forking. Content forking should be fixed, in the first instance, by redirecting. The redirect tells all old authors where to go.
If someone thinks that a spinout should be drafted, the answer should be "no". The unproduced film is barely notable for one article, let alone a family of article. And if the answer is yes, there should be a consensus of agreement on the talkpage of the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Now I say this be deleted because it contains "2020 film", and the film will not be released in that year. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mainly to address Kailash's last comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of American theatrical animated featuresEdit

Draft:List of American theatrical animated features (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another case of WP:TRIVIA; a list of trivia not backed by sources that would be better served in a category. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Ignore. It’s not going anywhere, and it is not doing any harm. It looks like an unregistered newcomer is trying to use draftspace as userspace. Advise them of WP:DUD and to WP:Register. Trivia is ok in userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal: Move the draft to User:Connorm2000/List of American theatrical animated features per the comments above. WP:DUD applies and this user as possibly the only user linked with all these edits can make any desired changes themselves. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree. Tentatively assume that the IP is Connorm2000 (talk · contribs) and userfy. I think this could be a useful notes page for this user, and it is not an article draft. --04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 15, 2019Edit

Portal:RiceEdit

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

Automated navbox-cloned portal. No curated version to revert to.

This portal is based on two navboxes: {{Rice}} and {{Rice dishes}}. This is slightly different from the two mass deletions of navbox-based portals, each of which was for portals based on just one naavbox. (See the mass deletions one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

I thought that portals based on two navboxes might be less spammy, but exploring two newish features of the Wikimedia software has shown that this type of portal is also redundant. Both for features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incongnito window" (Chrome).

  1. mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it on {{Rice}} and {{Rice dishes}}.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article Rice, so try clicking on any image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny slideshow on Portal:Rice.

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

So this portal is redundant. It is just an elaborate way of replicating built-in-functions.

Rice is is the agricultural commodity with the third-highest worldwide production, and Wikipedia has reasonably good coverage of various rice topics: see Category:Rice and its subcats. That might qualify it in some eyes as a broad topic, but I am more inclined to agree with the view that one foodstuff is a narrow topic, however copiously documented. WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" ... and in my experience, this type of topic does not attract portal maintainers.

But others may disagree, so I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - The portal has an average of 6 daily pageviews. The head article has an average of 2838 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - All of the portal MFDs so far appear to illustrate that "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers" have the nature of a mirage, that may or may not be somewhere, but is not where it appears to be. We haven't yet seen any portals that have large numbers of interested readers, although many lead articles have large numbers of interested readers. Portal maintainers do occasionally show up, but more often for areas of specific personal interest than broad areas. The case for any particular portal is a difficult one to make. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the nominator and the above comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Portals require active curation to fulfil their purpose.
  2. Portals need to be about broad topics.
  3. Portals shouldn't just fork navboxes or extant on-wiki sources.
SITH (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ShipsEdit

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

A huge topic, but just another drive-by spam portal, created by @The Transhumanist (TTH).

It looks at first glance like it may a curated portal with an embedded list, but it's actually just spam.

It contains a useless subset of this rich topic, created in the same slapdash way as many similar fake-curated portals I have brought to MFD. See e.g. Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks, and earlier today Australian literature.

It goes like this:

  1. TTH creates[150] the portal page, using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, which draws its "selected articles" list from Template:{{PAGENAME}}.
  2. That produces no list, because Template:{{PAGENAME}} resolves to Template:Ships. That page doesn't exist, so the "Selected general articles" section just shows a Lua error "No page specified."
  3. To create a list, TTH then does a quick screenscrape of Category:Ship types, dumps that into the portal page's "Topics" section, and changes the list-making code to use the embedded list. In the case of Portal:Ships, that reads: {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | | Portal:Ships | section1=Subtopics | }}=
    I verified that's how it was done by copying the list from the portal into WP:AWB, and using AWB's "list compare" to compare it with Category:Ship types. Perfect match, except for 5 extras pages in the category, which I checked had all been added to the category after the portal was made.
  4. Press save,[151] and key presto, an instant "portal". Five minutes after the first save, he's now got a portal with an embedded list, which looks at first glance like a curated portal.
  5. Three minutes between first save and last save.

(I have since hacked[152] the Lua Module:Excerpt slideshow so that portals built in this way are tracked at Category:Automated portals with embedded list. Some of them seem okay, but others are junk.)

In some cases, this technique produces a reasonably coherent list of subtopics which would be better done as a navbox.

But in this case it only gathered the sweepings of the topic.

Category:Ship types is the parent of a deep category tree. But I rapidly spotted that TTH has simply used the base category, and taken nothing from the subcats. Some list-making confirmed that, and also allowed a quick check for stubs. 131 of the 407 pages in TTH's list are tagged or assessed as stubs:

  1. Aframax
  2. Amphibious command ship
  3. Anchor handling tug supply vessel
  4. Armed merchant ship
  5. Armed yacht
  6. Autonomous ship
  7. Baidak
  8. Baltimax
  9. Barca-longa
  10. Barquentine
  11. Bawarij
  12. Bawley
  13. Beden
  14. Bilander
  15. Bludworth
  16. Breastwork monitor
  17. Cable layer
  18. Cannery tender
  19. Car float
  20. Caramoussal
  21. Cat-ketch
  22. Class leader
  23. CNG carrier
  24. Coastal minehunter
  25. Coastal minesweeper
  26. Coccas (ship type)
  27. Concrete Ship, Ex Sip
  28. Cottonclad warship
  29. Crommesteven
  30. Destroyer minesweeper
  31. Disposable ship
  32. Down Easter (ship)
  33. Evacuation transport
  34. Feeder ship
  35. Fighter catapult ship
  36. Fleet Solid Support Ship
  37. Fleet tender
  38. Floating fuel station
  39. Flotel
  40. Flush deck
  41. Four piper
  42. Fusta
  43. Gabbart
  44. Galeas
  45. Galiot
  46. Gallivat
  47. Guard ship
  48. Gundalow
  49. Handymax
  50. Headquarters ship
  51. Heavy-lift ship
  52. Helicopter cruiser
  53. Hermaphrodite brig
  54. Hjortspring boat
  55. Hopper barge
  56. Hulk (medieval ship type)
  57. Hydrogen tanker
  58. Jackup rig
  59. Jollyboat (dinghy)
  60. Juliet Marine Systems Ghost
  61. Karve (ship)
  62. Kelulus
  63. Knarr (keelboat)
  64. Koff (ship type)
  65. Kondura (ship)
  66. L boat
  67. Lancaran (ship)
  68. Landing Ship Logistics
  69. LCAC (United Kingdom)
  70. Lembus
  71. Lift-on/lift-off
  72. Lighthouse tender
  73. LPG carrier
  74. Malaccamax
  75. Missile range instrumentation ship
  76. Mistico (boat)
  77. Motor ship
  78. Motor torpedo boat tender
  79. Mtepe
  80. N/S
  81. Ocean escort
  82. Oceanographic research ship
  83. Oiler (ship)
  84. Open hatch bulk carrier
  85. Open hatch general cargo
  86. Palace steamer
  87. Patrol gunboat (hydrofoil)
  88. Pausik
  89. Penjajap
  90. Pentamaran
  91. Pilot cutter
  92. Pink (ship)
  93. Pipe-laying ship
  94. Pram (ship)
  95. Ramped craft logistic
  96. Ramped powered lighter
  97. Rendel gunboat
  98. Floating restaurant
  99. River icebreaker
  100. Rocket vessel
  101. Row galley
  102. Schooner barge
  103. Screw sloop
  104. Screw steamer
  105. Seawaymax
  106. Settee (sail)
  107. Shitik
  108. Shuttle tanker
  109. Snow (ship)
  110. Spéronare
  111. Steam brig
  112. STUFT
  113. Survey vessel
  114. Tartane
  115. Tender rig
  116. Tepukei
  117. Timberclad warship
  118. Tjotter
  119. Torpedo cruiser
  120. Treenailed boat
  121. Trincadour
  122. Tweendecker
  123. Twin-screw steamer
  124. Two-decker
  125. Type C3-class ship
  126. Type C5 class ship
  127. Type RO 15
  128. V24 (boat)
  129. VSTOL Support Ship
  130. Wave power ship
  131. Westamaran

TTH didn't even bother to remove from the selection topics which are not ships, such as Cat-ketch and Knarr (keelboat). Both are sailboats, not ships.

So once again, this was 5 minutes to create a portal which looks like it's curated, but is actually just disguised spam. It's hard to see how even its creator could have thought that this drive-by junk served any purpose other than boosting the count of the new "portals" which he listed in his "Newsletters". However, TTH's update #026, 20 Jan 2019 does explain that I was wrong to assume it was screenscraped: TTH used the script User:DannyS712/Cat links, which TTH called a Harvesting categories tool prototype.

Once again, never mind the quality, just count the numbers. Don't curate, just harvest ... and leave others to clean up the tsunami of spam.

I am sure that could be a decent portal on ship. It is a huge topic. But this piece of 5-minute harvested spam is so abysmal that it's worse than nothing. So I propose that this junk pseudo-portal be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to creating a curated portal not based on a single other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I doubt that a useful portal can be developed in 5 minutes, but the creator wasn't trying to develop useful portals, only to develop countable portals. (Hey: Countability is a mathematical property of sets, and a grammatical property of nouns.) Fortunately perhaps, the portal has only 2 average daily page views and so isn't wasting much time. Yes, I did adjust the baseline for the fact that the portal was created on 4 January 2019. I used 1/10/2019 - 3/10/2019. At least no working portals were broken in making this thing. Sink it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - When portal pageviews, or pageviews of anything, are this low, bot views need to be taken into account, so that it might be closer to 1.5 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Apply torpedo to sink useless crap.
    • @Robert McClenon: Bot views are counted separately (see the "Agent" drop-down in the menu to the left). In April this portal received 154 views identified as "User", 121 identified as "Spider" and 0 identified as bot. Obviously there are some caveats with this: Firstly, I've never seen any page with more than 0 "bot" hits - Wikipedia:Sandbox is regularly edited by bot but it's had 0 "bot" hits this year, my suspicion is that they are counted with spiders. Secondly there are some bot views misidentified as "user" - experience from years at RfD puts this in the range of about 3-6 views per year. I don't have similar experience of the figures for portal space, but I've got no reason to believe that it's going to be significantly different. So unless you've got evidence to the contrary, the proportion of non-human views is going to be so small it's insignificant. (I'm not !voting on this specific portal (yet) as while the topic is very obviously broad enough, I haven't spent any time examining the implementation). Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Thryduulf - Then it is 114 total human pageviews or 2 daily pageviews, as contrasted with 1037 daily pageviews for the head article. The conclusion doesn't change. The portal isn't useful, certainly not in its current state, and probably not in a curated state, but we are not discussing a curated portal, except to say that we have not ruled one out. My conclusion is that breadth of an area does not and cannot be used in itself as an argument why a portal is appropriate. Wikipedia readers don't use portals. They use articles, links, categories, and articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Undeclared automatic creation warrants automatic deletion.
  2. Portals require active maintenance to fulfil their purpose.
  3. The topic is potentially wide enough, so this is without prejudice to thoughtful recreation, but in its current state this needs dynamiting.
SITH (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Fitzhugh MullanEdit

Draft:Fitzhugh Mullan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Fitzmullan/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These are two almost identical copies of an autobiography. The issue is not academic notability. The subject, as a member of the National Academy of Medicine, almost certainly satisfies notability. The issues are tone, and persistent submission. This draft is better than most autobiographies, because the subject is notable, but it isn't likely to be accepted as long as the author and the subject are the same person. Recommend that these two copies be deleted, and that the title be extended-confirmed protected in draft space and article space, so that a neutral article can be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Australian literatureEdit

Portal:Australian literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Huge topic, but just another drive-by junk portal, created by @The Transhumanist (TTH).

Contains a useless subset of this rich topic, created in the same slapdash way as many similar fake-curated portals I have brought to MFD. See e.g. Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks

It goes like this:

  1. TTH creates[153] the portal page, using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, which draws its "selected articles" list from Template:{{PAGENAME}}.
  2. That produces no list, because Template:{{PAGENAME}} resolves to Template:Australian literature. That page doesn't exist, so the "Selected general articles" section just shows a Lua error "No page specified."
  3. To create a list, TTH then does a quick screenscrape of the eponymous Category:Australian literature, dumps[154] that into the portal page's "Topics" section, and changes the list-making code to use the embedded list. In the case of Portal:Australian literature, that reads: {{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more= | | | Portal:{{PAGENAME}} | section1=Topics | }}=
    I verified that's how it was done by copying the list from the portal into WP:AWB, and using AWB's "list compare" to compare two. Perfect match.
  4. Press save, and key presto, an instant "portal". Three minutes after the first save, he's now got a portal with an embedded list, which looks at first glance like a curated portal.
  5. Three minutes between first save and last save.

(I have since hacked[155] the Lua Module:Excerpt slideshow so that portals built in this way are tracked at Category:Automated portals with embedded list. Some of them seem okay, but others are junk.)

In some cases, this technique produces a reasonably coherent list of subtopics which would be better done as a navbox.

But in this case it only gathered the sweepings of the topic.

Category:Australian literature is the parent of a deep category tree. But I rapidly spotted that TTH has simply used the base category, and taken nothing from the subcats. Some list-making confirmed that, and also allowed a quick check: only one of the 21 pages displayed as "subtopics" are assessed as FA, GA, A, B, C or list-class, which is what portals should be made of. 28 of the articles, all listed in the "Subtopics" section, are stubs:

But that's not the worst of it.

TTH's selection consists only of those which have not been properly categorised by diffusion into subcats. If you wanted to chose a set of what are likely to be the least developed articles on electricity, TTH's drive-by screengrab would be a good approach.

So once again, this was 3 minutes to create a portal which looks like it's curated, but is actually just disguised spam. It's hard to see how even its creator could have thought that this drive-by junk served any purpose other than boosting the count of the new "portals" which he listed in his "Newsletters".

Once again, never mind the quality, just count the numbers ... and leave others to clean up the tsunami of spam.

I am sure that could be a decent portal on Australian literature. It is a huge topic. But this piece of 3-minute spam is so abysmal that it's worse than nothing. So I propose that this junk pseudo-portal be deleted per WP:TNT without prejudice to creating a curated portal not based on a single other page, in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Again, the pageview metrics are "interesting". The head article Australian literature has mean daily 116 pageviews during the baseline period. This is not a lot of pageviews for such a broad topic, which indicates that some sort of a navigation aid could be useful. However, as BHG says, this is not a useful navigation aid. The portal had 52 pageviews during the baseline period. That isn't an average. That's a total. That is an average of 1 daily pageview. That means that this portal isn't serving any purpose. It might as well be fed to kangaroos. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this nothing-portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: portals require active maintenance to fulfil their purpose. SITH (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SilesiaEdit

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

Abandoned mini-portal on the historical region of Silesia in Central Europe.

Created[156] in February 2007‎ by LUCPOL (talk · contribs), whose block log[157] inclues sockpuppeteering and edit-warring, and ends in 2011 with an indefinite block for long-term disruptive editing and revert warring on Silesia-related pages.

The portal was never automated, perhaps because @Bermicourt was added[158] as a maintainer in July 2018‎.

I dunno whether Bermicourt was aware of their appointment, but this titular role didn't end the abandonment. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Silesia shows that all the key sub-pages remain as they were left by the disruptive LUCPOL back in 2007: /Silesia news, /Selected article, /Selected picture, /Selected biography, /Silesia topics.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 140 consecutive updates. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Silesia and its navbox {{Silesia topics}}.

In theory, this might be a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met 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". Despite the labelling, this has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 9 pageviews per day.

Since September 2006, the lead of the portal guidelines at WP:PG have warned editors: Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.

But, but, but... BHG - Maintaining portals is hard work. Creating portals is fun. Do you want to prevent burdensome fun? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to the abandoned drafts of editors who ignored that guidance, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, per e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Proposal. If this is deleted I'm willing to translate and adapt it's German Wikipedia counterpart, which looks mature, has better coverage and project editor tools. I'm then happy to maintain it. But I'm not willing to do any of that if it just gets culled in the next round of portal bombing. :) Bermicourt (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Bermicourt, thanks for that proposal. As you know, I am quite a fan of the portals which you have adapted from the German wikipedia. They seem to me to be amongst the few portals which actually add value beyond the head article, by avoiding the built-in-anyway slideshows of articles and pictures, and providing a really good list of topics.
Will they survive? I guess that depends on wider decisions. It seems to me that the more that portals resemble that sort of low-maintenance format, the more portals can be sustained.
However, it seems to me that it will still be necessary to have some type of broad topic threshold, because the community can't sustain too many portals. It certainly can't maintain all the portals it has now, and I suspect that the total will be somewhere in the hundreds. Low hundreds if the high-maintenance-squillion-subpages-format is maintained, high hundreds is it's lower maintenance. And in that context, do the maths: ~200 countries, start adding a few subdivisions, you're already pushing the numbers. Add in historical regions, and ... well.
But that's where I think things will eventually end up. I's like it to get there soon, but I reckon that the path there will be long, and that the next year or so will probably be mostly a little more consolidation as the usual crew demand to keep portals on niche topics like single musicians and small cities, and to retain any old abandoned junk 'cos some day someone might improve it, and not deprecate the sub-page format. And then in a year or two there will another push by somebody from outside, and a big row, and some other big shift.
Hope that helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Yet another portal created by a banned sockpuppeteer. There may be some conclusion, such as that portals are easy to start if one doesn't care about civility and collaboration. I am not entirely sure what User:Bermicourt is saying, or whether that is reason to request a Relist. It is not a reason for me to be Neutral, so Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • If you're not entirely sure what another editor is saying, why not take the trouble to find out? And you haven't cited a reason for deletion, just an ad hominem argument. Bermicourt (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I agree with BHG's above assessment that Bermicourt's portals are often among the best ones. If they're willing to bring this one up to scratch, I'm sure it would pass the breadth test. SITH (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CrimeaEdit

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

Static mini-portal about Crimea. Created in 2007 and largely abandoned since 2009.

Automated[159] by @The Transhumanist in February 2019‎. Automation reversed[160] in April 2019.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Crimea shows that most of them are unchanged:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 consecutive updates.

In theory, this might be broad topic. But in practice, it has never the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 9 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned page. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Crimea and it navbox {{Crimea topics}}

This abandoned relic is unlikely to suddenly attract the maintainers which it has lacked for 12 years. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, per e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AyyavazhiEdit

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

Static mini-portal on the Indian religious belief of Ayyavazhi, abandoned since 2006.

Created[166] in March 2006‎ by Vaikunda Raja (talk · contribs), whose last portalspace edit was in October 2009.

In September 2018‎, it was converted[167] by @The Transhumanist to a fully-automated portal. I reverted[168] that automation on 15 May 2019.

That leaves the portal simply as a static display of 3 subtopics and one picture. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Ayyavazhi shows:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 150 consecutive updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Ayyavazhi.

This may be a broad topic in theory. But in practice, it doesn't meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 10 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon fantasy that leaving it abandoned has anyything other than a remote chance of attracting editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, per e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - It appears that the sorceress is using a slightly different but again standard version of her incantation. This is a case where the subject area itself isn't attracting large numbers of interested readers. There are 10 daily pageviews for the portal, and 121 daily pageviews for the article. What that means is that we need an article on the subject. We have an article. We don't need a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. This portal does not have the active maintenance required for portals.
  2. Its breadth, in its current state, is questionable.
SITH (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject MenEdit

Wikipedia:WikiProject Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This one- two-participant WikiProject is a fork of WP:WikiProject Men's Issues (semi-active). The creator proposed this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men after already creating the project page. The proposal lists four articles that would be within the scope of WikiProject Men. All of them are already within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues or WP:WikiProject Gender Studies (active) or both. The lack of any listed "Goals" or "Scope" on this WikiProject Men page demonstrates that this is nothing more than one editor's pointy creation to "prove" that if we have WikiProjects for women, we should also have mirror WikiProjects for men. For the answer to that, see the essay WP:Systemic bias. Bottom line, we already have an active Gender Studies project and a semi-active Men's Issues project; the creator should join one of those two (or both) instead of creating a new project on the same topic. Levivich 15:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I share many of the concerns expressed in the nomination, but as a procedural matter, would it make better sense to wait to see the discussion outcome at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men before considering page deletion? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tryptofish: I would agree if there were an active conversation going on there. But after a week, there are zero comments except for the proposer's. My understanding is that the WikiProject Council is semi-active or inactive itself. I agree we should have one conversation about it somewhere, but since the proposal is getting no participation, I thought I'd bring it to editors' attention here. Levivich 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It depends on which way this is going to go. If it's just going to be a catch-all "every male biography" project it will serve no useful purpose, but I could see legitimate grounds for a place to coordinate topics like men's health, male sexuality etc. At present the project is too vague in its remit for it to be possible to form an opinion. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly pointy in the light of the recent discussions, and the topics of gender and andrology are covered by existing WikiProjects. -- (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although the intended scope is not entirely clear, I think that the best interpretation of the available information is that the proposed project is not needed and is WP:POINTy. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    After reading some of the subsequent arguments for keeping, I'm withdrawing my delete comment. For now, I'm neutral. I still have the previous concerns, but I recognize that, as a matter of WP policy, those are really WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and as such, I cannot justify deletion on that basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    I've been following this discussion, and I see that Netoholic pinged me in the section below. I've been going round in circles about my opinion on this, and I'll just stay neutral on it, while expressing some personal distaste for the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Funnily enough, just as this nomination was being posted, I was adding myself to the project and making some improvements to the page. In spite of my involvement, though, I also am dubious about the need for this project given the related projects that already exist. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That is funny! I updated the nom to note two members, but I'd like to point out to everyone that WanderingWanda's sole contribution to date to the project, which was adding topics/articles to the project's scope, was promptly reverted by Netoholic. So I guess there's a civil war between the only two participants of the project? This demonstrates how pointy this project is. Levivich 16:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator. You can read my rationale for creation of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men. Specifically, this is meant to be a top-level organization WikiProject meant to parallel WP:WikiProject Women. The existing WP:WikiProject Men's Issues and WP:WikiProject Gender Studies each have a quite narrow focus of interest - neither would be appropriate for, say, maintenance and improvement efforts involving men's biographies. The goal, as I see it, is to use this WikiProject for interested participants to be able to track article status, get notifications, and enable quality improvement on what seems to be a forgotten strata of articles. If you look at any matching pair of basic articles (man/woman, father/mother, boy/girl, masculism/feminism, andrology/gynaecology), its apparent that the male-focused articles are now generally less-developed than their counterparts. Certainly, there has been an extreme amount of focus on improving women's articles, leading to the creation of at least 17 women-focused WikiProjects, and it seems like now our male-based articles, maintenance processes, and article improvement processes have begun to lag behind. Perhaps the nominator is presuming that there is no interest in improving these articles? I feel it is this nomination while the project is in its early creation period that is WP:POINTy. -- Netoholic @ 16:04 16:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • What articles would be in the scope of WikiProject Men that are not in the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues or WikiProject Gender Studies? If it's male biographies, well, I think the most-recent stats we have is 82% male biographies and 18% female biographies, so I think we're OK there? Why isn't WP:WikiProject Biography sufficient to handle male biographies? Also, your argument is undercut when you revert the only other participant's additions of articles to the project scope (see my links above). Levivich 16:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • A good deal of Wikipedia processes have women-focused versions, but not men-based counterparts - consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women vs no Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts but no equivalent for men. If you're implying that a disparity in male vs female biographies is a reason not to have these basic tracking functions, then I have to disagree. In fact, if the number of articles is so much higher, there is an even greater need for these mechanisms to track status. I don't think this is only about biographies though. For instance, men's organizations and men's sports likewise have no equivalent mechanisms for tracking article status or promoting improvements. -- Netoholic @ 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm also dubious about the focus on men's biographies considering Wikipedia is already dominated by those. It also seems like Netoholic's intention is for the project to have a significant focus on the Men's Rights Movement/anti-feminism, and again there's not a need for that because that's the focus of the WP:MRM project. If the project were to have value I think the focus would have to be on male-related pages that aren't biographies or MRM-related. (Pages like Man, Boy, Men's health, Toxic masculinity, Men's studies, John Henryism, Sex differences in emotional intelligence, Violence against men, Stay-at-home dad, etc.) WanderingWanda (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, the project is in its infancy, but what is the rush to delete? And even once it is no longer in its infancy, it needs to actually be disruptive to fall under WP:POINT, and the nominator has given no evidence of such disruption. There really are almost no limits on editors creating WikiProjects to bring editors together. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wait for 6 months and see how the project is going then. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per above. It may become nothing in the end or become problematic and need to be deleted but I think the wish to delete it so quickly isn't helpful or productive. Springee (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete very pointy. I'm not quite convinced it is a good idea to let this project fester by delaying this discussion some few months. –MJLTalk 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Redirect to Wikiproject Men's Issues.The recent disagreement over the project's scope ([173] [174] [175]) seems to just solidify for me why this project is a lost cause. I have no clue why Wanda has put their lot in with this WikiProject, but they are correct in that they are a co-equal member now. If the only two participants can't work together, then I just prefer we be done with this experiment already.MJLTalk 22:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    @MJL: I have a theory as to why Wanda "joined" - concern trolling. They have attempted to change the scope of the project to put it in the most narrow, controversial light (and make it appear redundant with WP:WikiProject Men's Issues) in order to affect this deletion discussion itself. Their recent contribs adding this WikiProject's template to topics based on a particular slant and without adding necessary article ratings/priority, are likely meant to mock the project and sabotage future legitimate tagging efforts. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Netoholic: I don't want to get involved with all that, but if that is what you think then nothing I say will likely convince you otherwise. My experience with Wanda has been on balance very different than yours. –MJLTalk 23:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    The idea that I'm trying to "mock" or "sabotage" anything is a pure flight of fancy. I make no bones about the fact that I have mixed feelings about the project, and I certainly have mixed feelings about working with someone who has been unrelentingly hostile towards me. But I joined to make the project better. That was my only motivation. Do you know how I picked the "slanted" topics I did? Since Wikipedia relies on WP:RELIABLESOURCES I went to a reliable source: The APA's Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men, a well-researched academic overview by the well-respected American Psychological Association. I cracked it open. I read it. I wrote down key terms. "Hegemonic masculinity" appeared repeatedly so I wrote it down. It started talking about transgender men so I wrote down "trans men". Etc. The majority of the articles that I tagged probably came from that list. That's the kind of work I'm willing to put in. Maybe you find the topics I chose unserious or mock-worthy but I don't. As for the fact that I didn't rate anything, I figured it was fine to save that for later. *Shrug* Is that not kosher? I've seen other people add project tags for other projects without adding ratings. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I don't understand how this project can develop into anything other than a fork of WikiProject Men's Issues aka WP:MEN. That project could get restarted, heck it could even get moved over to WP:WikiProject Men, but there's no need for two such projects. I note we have a WP:WikiProject Women but not also a WP:WikiProject Women's Issues, as that would be redundant. Levivich
  • Comment - Deferring an !vote, largely to see whether it is the project or the nomination that is more pointy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Rambling opinion leaning towards delete/userfy pending further discussion Normally I wouldn't want to delete a one-week-old Wikiproject. But given the subject matter, I think there is a material risk of this turning into battleground, and things like calling what looks like a good-faith addition to scope 'clearly disruptive' give me further concerns along these lines. If there is a viable WikiProject that can form a consensus on scope and purpose and distinction from other projects, then fine. But if that conversation is to happen at all, it won't happen as a deletion discussion. So I would delete for now and then allow the possibility of recreation if there is any sign of a viable project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Men or some other venue. The Land (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    @The Land: For transparency, I marked that edit as such due to that editor's recent disruption in other gender-based areas, and their misleading change to the WikiProject introduction which attempted to poison the well for participants of this MfD by attempting to equate this WikiProject with men's rights activism and other deeply-controversial areas. I'd also invite you to track their recent contribs adding this WikiProject's template to topics based on a particular slant and without adding necessary article ratings/priority. I believe they are WP:NOTHERE to actually improve the situation. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I'm going to keep an open mind about everyone's motivations at this point. The Land (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I joined the project because I want to help improve it. Simple as that. I think a project focused on men and boys could be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. I'm disappointed that Netoholic does not seem interested in collaborating or compromising and instead seems to want to take WP:OWNERSHIP of the page, immediately undoing the good faith edits I've made and accusing me of disruption. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - because there is no reason to single out this wikiproject when there are many others that have been dead for years. I don't think it's a good deletion criterion that a new project only have one or two members - that is to be expected. Frankly, so many pages on WP are a total mess, that singling out this doesn't make sense. If it turns out the creation of this group was to make a wp:point (as this deletion probably was), then we can re-discuss. If there evidence of that this was created to be disruptive? If not, let it stay. Men are half the population, anyway. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, 'there are already too many male biographies' is not a good reason to delete this either. Yikes. Just withdraw the nomination. Yikes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason to single out WikiProject Men is that it's a new project duplicative of the already-existing WP:MEN. Everything in the scope of WikiProject Men (literally, every article) is already in the scope of either WP:MEN (semi-active) or WP:WikiProject Gender Studies (active). There are two participants, and the second participant's efforts to expand the scope were reverted by the project creator as "clearly disruptive" [176]. I don't know how you get out of these points that this is about "too many male biographies", or a project being "dead for years", or too few members. None of those are the reasons for this nomination. I cannot withdraw the nomination because there have already been delete !votes. If editors think we should have multiple projects on these topics then, fine, let's keep it, but please don't mischaracterize my nomination argument. Levivich 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: as the nominator points out, systematic bias is the reason why creating WPMen to mirror WPWomen is false balance. But in fact the creator doesn't seem to want an analogous project to WPWomen (such a project would focus on tagging the 80% of biographies whose subjects are male); instead what they want is a duplicate of WP Men's Issues. The solution is to actively participate in the existing WP Men's Issues (or related projects like Gender Studies), and get people to bring it from "semi-active" to "active". Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "The lack of any listed "Goals" or "Scope" on this WikiProject Men page demonstrates that this is nothing more than one editor's pointy creation to "prove" that if we have WikiProjects for women, we should also have mirror WikiProjects for men." An alternate interpretation would be that it is a brand new WikiProject, and it would need more members to clearly define its goals. Most WikiProjects go through extensive debates to define or redefine their scope. Dimadick (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Dimadick: I have a simpler explanation - I used the boilerplate Template:WikiProject and those blank sections are just the default appearance. As you said, scope and goals are something that develops after discussion with legitimately interested participants, and this WP is a recent creation. I've been working on more of the backend setup, like categories and template stuff. -- Netoholic @ 22:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It has a poorly defined scope and is likely to become a battleground. It could further systematic bias and create false bias. I have heard arguments from keep voters that it does not violate policies, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument of what good it will do. I concur with previous users that creating an article to improve articles about mens' health and sexuality or other specific topics could be helpful, but the lack of a clear scope hampers the effectiveness of this WikiProject towards that goal. If it is deleted, it should be without prejudice to recreation after further discussion and the development of a proper scope. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC) (typos fixed: 00:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
  • Procedural delete - The proposal for this WikiProject is still open and has only 1 support vote (by the proposer) and no discussion whatsoever. Creating the project was premature. If consensus is built at the proposal, only then should the WikiProject be created. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I noticed and agreed with the notifications to WP:MEN and WP:Gender Studies. I also wonder given the proposed scope and the ongoing discussion whether WP:BIOGRAPHY and WP:WOMEN should be notified. I am raising this here in advance to avoid any conflict that could arise from WP:CANVASSING. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you for posting a note on the proposal page. I also agree with posting at the Bio and Women WikiProjects (and any other WikiProjects). WP:CANVASSING explicitly permits neutral-worded statements on WikiProject talk pages. Levivich 01:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [177], [178]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netoholic (talkcontribs) 02:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: you recently left messages announcing WikiProject Men on the talk pages of WikiProjects Sports, Mil hist, Soc, Psych, Pol, Orgs, Discrim, Hist, Video games, and Bio, all of which were reverted as spam (e.g., here and here), plus a message on VPMisc. How does posting this AfD to WikiProject Gender Studies (which has articles that overlap with the scope of WikiProject Men) and WikiProject Women (the direct analogue to WikiProject Men) constitute canvassing? What makes those two WikiProjects different from all the others? Levivich 04:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WP:MEN. That WikiProject is listed as semi-active, so maybe these forces could combine. – bradv🍁 03:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Exceedingly pointy, and likely to cause an enormous number of issues if left to its own devices. Honestly thought it was an April Fools joke that hadn't got deleted/noticed, most disappointing to see that this is a real thing. Yes, Wikipedia needs to address its biases, but this feels like the opposite of a solution! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, waaaaay too broad. InvalidOS (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete pointy and ridiculous. There is a huge systemic bias towards men in Wikipedia, and the proposal for this project does not have the support required. Do something useful with your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is obvious POV pushing disruption. I agree completely with Peacemaker67's comments above - we have a significant problem with the over-representation of men and associated male-related topics, and proposals like this can't be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - per the last four delete comments directly above. Most notably WP:POINT though. Sergecross73 msg me 10:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to be just a pointy exercise based on a dislike of efforts to balance the over-representation of men, and it lacks enough support to form a viable project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POINT and WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues (WP:MEN). It's usually better to revive an existing project than to start a new one with an overlapping scope, unless there is sufficient activity to justify this. WikiProject Men's Issues can be renamed if necessary. — Newslinger talk 18:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete on the procedural grounds and the point about, well, pointy-ness made above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Given the context of its creation, it just seems disruptive. If the proposal gets a lot of support, then no prejudice against its recreation. I don't know about a redirect to WikiProject Men's Issues, which specifically doesn't correspond to WikiProject Women but instead is about the men's movement(s). As such I'm not sure the WP:MEN shortcut is really appropriate either, given the men's movements (as far as I'm familiar with them, which admittedly isn't all that much) don't seem to actually be representative of half the population, rhetoric aside. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: This is true, and your concerns are valid. However, I just don't want to have to go through this process again at RFD, so I !voted for the redirect. It's an inactive/semi-active project, and Redirects are cheap. –MJLTalk 22:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • RedirectI have some misgivings about Netoholic's reasoning. I hear comparisons of projects and numbers, but what I don't hear is a reason why having this project would benefit Wikipedia. I am a little concerned that that isn't the main topic of discussion. As I understand, the women projects are not built just to handle coverage--they are built because mostly men edit Wikipedia. It isn't a problem that can fix itself. Special attention needed to be paid due to that disparity. I don't see any similar situation regarding men, and I don't really see how an overarching men's project will improve Wikipedia as a whole. I also don't see how it would improve particular parts of Wikipedia in a way that Men's Issues would not, especially in biographies. I don't see what special problems there are in covering men that a majority male editor population cannot solve organically. I think one day there may be a place for such a Wikiproject, but it isn't right now. I like a redirect to make it easier to find the actual Men's Issues project, though. Prometheus720 (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a solution looking for a problem. I said recently at a meetup that the reason I am supportive of Women in Red is not really because they're writing about women, but rather because it's a well-organised group of like-minded editors who have come together in an atmosphere of general camaraderie and mutual respect in order to encourage each other to write and improve articles. If they were group of Women's Institute members all wanting to improve our coverage on articles about jam and cakes, I'd feel the same. This project, however, hasn't set out any goals, listed many articles it intends to focus on, and the two main participants have already turned on each other. Therefore, I think it's creating more heat than light and should be quickly put to one side, taken out the back, and shot unceremoniously. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A ridiculous, POINTy duplicate of existing projects. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with others that the creation of this wikiproject was a silly exercise in point-making, roughly on a par with the perennial College Republican stunt involving scholarships for white men. But, I also don't really see what the harm of it is -- certainly, I would rather have the project founder working to improve articles about men rather than disrupting articles about women (or academics, or anything else). On the other hand, the distinction between this and WP:MEN is not very convincing. So count me as redirect or keep. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As a fork, as detailed in the rationale at the top. There is certainly room for parity between Project: Women and Project: Men. It already exists, even if the names are not the same. Work within an established project, don't start a new one. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is just pointy even if it is not meant to be so. Are we going to tag this WikiProject on every single article? Cringy. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 22:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Full statement from creatorEdit

I had quietly created this WikiProject page May 9 after comparing several article "pairs", and finding that men's articles seem to be less-developed than their women's counterparts. I looked for an existing WikiProject and only found WP:WikiProject Men's Issues, which states its scope as men's issues (redirects to men's movement). I have no strong interest in the men's movement activism topics, and the articles I found lacking were more broad (men, boy, father, andrology, men's health) than would be suited for that WikiProject. I am absolutely dismayed by the stunning lack of WP:AGF and unfounded WP:ASPERSIONS being cast against me - there was no WP:POINT intended at all and no one has shown there was.

WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals is highly-inactive (I'd almost call that process dead), but the static resources of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council for setting up a WikiProject are still useful. Still, to voters @Tryptofish, The Land, Kaldari, Peacemaker67, and Rhododendrites: I have to point out that nowhere is it stated that the Council process is mandatory - and since it is so dead, its hardly fair to expect fast or clear results. I fully-intended to go slowly on this, try to attract participants, and grow the project organically because I knew a lot of people might misinterpret its intent. I was largely working on back-end setup, and had not done any formal announcement or any recruiting posts yet. I feel like proposing deletion of a WikiProject just getting off the ground is hardly fair - and, in fact, we don't even delete long-time inactive WikiProjects.

This MfD request was then posted just 6 days after I'd created the WikiProject. The nominator didn't contact me prior to posting it to inquire about the Project's goals or scope, or to ask why I made it. Not that he had to, but it would have been a courtesy, and maybe given the opportunity, he would have found that my intentions were noble. I am firmly on the side of article improvement and general maintenance. I do not see this as competition against any Women's WikiProjects, nor do I see this WikiProject as a threat against efforts to combat systemic bias. Article improvement is not article creation. Delete voters are effectively saying that men's health, men's organizations, lists of men, and works about men shall not be improved in an organized fashion. That attitude is simply not a healthy Wikipedia culture.

I would like to point out one very important thing in closing. Its been often confirmed that only about 10% of active editors are women. That said, this deletion discussion might prove conclusively that Wikipedia is not as dominated by men's influence as is so often claimed. If male influence were so strong, then this WikiProject would have been created years ago, have a huge participant list, and perhaps itself would have spawned 17 men-focused sub-WikiProjects. The fact that WP:WikiProject Men is in fact being considered for deletion is evidence to the contrary. Male editors on Wikipedia have done a fine job of stepping up and work side-by-side with female editors to ensure fair coverage - to the point where coverage and coordination to improve their own topics has been lacking. I would have loved to work with some of those editors on necessary article improvement of men's topics, and I still feel that is a noble goal. The idea that there is still some sort of internal war of the sexes needs to be checked against reality, and the deletion discussion of this WikiProject might provide a bit of proof that the community is much healthier than we thought. While I think its unfair to delete it and I'd be very sad to see it go, maybe all this will have served a higher purpose than I could have imagined when I started it. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Netoholic: you are a good editor and have contributed more to this encyclopedia than I could ever even hope to match. However, I think you miss the mark a bit in this statement, but I don't read this discussion the same ways as you at all. It is awfully clear to me that editors feel like we have made very little amount of progress representing women fairly to such a degree that they see proposals such as yours as not only in poor taste but a threat to progress. We have no need for this wikiproject because, at present time, the whole wiki-movement has fundamentally served the same purpose. 17.83% of our biographical articles are about women (source). That's less than a fifth! Most of us find it's easy to say that the men are doing just fine with those kinds of figures (regardless of the current article quality). This certainly has left the articles you refer to in disrepair as you have noticed.
Acknowledging the problem is one thing, but then getting to the solution is clearly more difficult. This is where most people have differed with you (from my perspective at least). You had a number of possibilities to tackle this problem ahead of you, right? Starting this WikiProject was just one option of many. Several !voters here have cited re-invigorating WikiProject Men's Issues as a good possible course of action. Your contention here is shaky at best citing no interest in contributing to Men's Rights Movement-related articles. We all agree that is a legitimate concern, I think. However, we differ on the questions of: (1) Is not Men's health a men's issue? (2) Is the promotion of quality Wikipedia articles that focus on men also a men's issue? This is where at least I am coming from in my redirect vote. The line-up is one-to-one, and were you to restart the project, we'd all hope you do so with the scope that makes the most sense (ie. not MRM). I'll skip the discussion about taskforces since this is long-winded enough.
Finally, I would like to close with how the wikiproject has been disruptive so far since I do not agree with your assessment of the matter. You have left out any mention of your recent notices to various WikiProjects inviting them to join this new endeavour. This included my own WikiProject (WP:POLITICS)[179], Military history [180], Discrimination [181], Sports [182], and even Videogames [183]. All those were posted after this MfD nomination, and I still wonder why you felt that it was for the best to post them. From my perspective as a WikiProject Politics participant, I did not put that page into my watchlist to get mass invites for projects that have nothing directly to do with politics.
I just find that the recent conflict between yourself and Wanda to be discouraging since you two clearly share the same goals. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking this came as a response to the recent community interest in gender-related topics. Either way, if you can't work with the one person who literally signed up to help improve these articles, then I really don't know what else to say besides there might be some problems there. I hope I am not being too out of line (again) for being a new user and saying all that; nor do I hope to be upsetting. This is just where I think things went wrong from my limited understanding of the situation. –MJLTalk 06:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: replying by paragraph - 1) The disparity in women vs men biographies (17.83%) almost exactly matches the coverage disparity (20%) found in U.S. newspapers in a recent study and if you account for historical suppression of women it could show that our percentage of coverage is not far off from the best we could expect to provide based on the sources we have to work with. Perhaps in Wikipedia's early years, male editors were focused on male topics... but seeing how many men support/participate in WP:WOMEN and sub-projects, I think that's not the case anymore on average (again, look how this WikiProject is being treated). Our coverage of women's topics of interest (those things outside biographies) is clearly more substantial and better quality than men's topics. 2) Those topics may be "men's issues", but seeing as WP:WikiProject Men's Issues has the association with the men's rights movement and activism, its easy to see why so few would want to be attached to it. I am positive if I listed myself as a participant in it, that fact alone would be used against me to claim I am a misogynist, MRM activist, POV warrier, or whatever. Its a poison pill I won't swallow. I had a long-term idea to possibly propose converting it to a taskforce under WikiProject Men. 3) A number of voters here described willingness to keep the Project if more interest was shown, so I was a bit forced to make some announcements to recruit during this 7-day MfD window, when I would otherwise have not done so yet. Such notices are not spam - in fact, I just pointed out to someone else that there is nothing unusual about posting announcements of new WikiProjects to talk pages of existing ones of tangential interest. 4) If I were joining a freshly-created WikiProject, my first act would be to post on the talk page or ask the creator directly what help they needed the most. I would not do what Wanda did and post incomplete WikiProject banners on a bunch of article talk pages, nor would I immediately attempt to redefine the WikiProject's written scope. -- Netoholic @ 09:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Netoholic: - You say that this was an article improvement project and you imply here that this would not include biographies. However, we cannot read your mind and at the WikiProject Council you said: "A WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of men's topics such as ... biographies about men." You also included Category:Men in the list of relevant articles. It wouldn't be casting WP:ASPERSIONS to claim that increasing the number of biographies about men would increase systematic bias. From the evidence available to !voters, it would seem that adding more biographies of men would likely be one of the goals of the WikiProject. I'd be willing to join a project about Men's Health and Sexuality and improve articles in that sphere. However, at this time the project is about "articles of interest to men". While this would incluude many biographies of women, I would be surprised if this WikiProject plans to cover them. I think that if this discussion results in keep, significant rethinking of scope will need to occur, to develop a coherent and specific definition. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@StudiesWorld: I recently wrote up the missing Goals/Scope sections of WP:WikiProject Men taking the feedback on biographies and other items into account - please have a read. I'd really like to see this be a broad-spectrum article improvement WikiProject - not one based on creation of articles. A lot of the uncertainty was strictly due to this MfD coming so early in the WikiProject's development. -- Netoholic @ 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Netoholic: 1) 3% of our total biographies is almost 50,000 articles. There is a lot more work to be done to say the least on that front, and it could potentially take years to accomplish that. Either way, I think you are rather oversimplifying this rather nuanced discussion on gender-/-publicity-/-notability. 2) When I say "revamp" I am not talking about the same project with the same scope. I am talking about completely reinventing the Wikiproject. Take a look at this: [184]. Less than a year in and WikiProject Portals does not look the same whatsoever. Talking the current participants, reaching out to a few more who edit high-importance Men-related articles, and getting consensus for doing something with a larger scope. 3) We'll agree to disagree on that point. I guess it can boil down to my own personal preference vs the situation you're in. 4) Wanda is a lot newer than you. You are speaking with more than a decade and a half of experience with this site. From their perspective, they were doing what would have been normal work for any other wikiproject (until they were told to stop). They really are here to build an encyclopedia, that I assure you. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: This probably isn't the place to get deeply into that discussion, so I'm definitely simplifying a bit, just to keep responses to the main points. -- Netoholic @ 10:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Netoholic: "would be used against me to claim I am a misogynist, MRM activist, POV warrier, or whatever" would be terrible, very unfair. Though of course, it has not happened, this is you being a hypothetical victim as a rhetorical tactic to avoid this WikiProject being deleted.
Checking through your contribution history for just this month, I can see you attacking others multiple times for being POV warriors, activists, criticising "one segment" and even all "academics" for manipulating Wikipedia policies. I can see why you have these fears of being subjected to the same dismissive parody that you have a long track record of dishing out. As you appear to want to make a full statement, have you anything critical to say about your recent use of tired dog whistles? -- (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@: I can't answer your final loaded question, but as for the rest, you're just casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You can't just gesture at month's-worth of contributions and just claim I said any those things. I also don't see at all what this has to do with improving the quality of men's articles or maintaining categories and lists. If I have flaws, that has no bearing on whether this strata of articles should or should not be collaboratively improved. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
How sad that you do not for one second reflect over the irony that what is sauce for the goose really should always be sauce for the non-egg-laying gander and instead are locked into a pattern of self-victimization. I am confident you fully remember what you wrote on Jimmy Wales' talk page without me supplying a diff. This is not an Arbcom case, so here is a probably very incomplete selection from just this month, searching for a few trigger words.
  1. 2019-05-14 16:05 Talk:Masculism /* Additional discussion */
  2. 2019-05-14 02:05 Talk:Fathers' rights movement /* Requested move 13 May 2019 */
  3. 2019-05-13 20:33 User talk:Netoholic /* Enough */
  4. 2019-05-13 05:51 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies /* Men's Rights sidebars */
  5. 2019-05-12 20:20 User talk:SlimVirgin /* POV edits to Chairman */ new section
  6. 2019-05-07 21:54 User talk:Jimbo Wales /* Notability of academics */ new section
  7. 2019-05-06 13:35 Talk:Woman /* A woman is more than a job? */
  8. 2019-05-05 07:53 Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) /* primary vs secondary vs tertiary */
  9. 2019-05-04 14:10 Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) /* Alternate wording */
-- (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Those links do not confirm that I've "attacked" anyone the way you've said I've done. Please keep on topic with the discussion at hand, which is whether men-focused articles should be improved via collaborative editing. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The links perfectly demonstrate "I can see you attacking others multiple times for being POV warriors, activists, criticising "one segment" and even all "academics" for manipulating Wikipedia policies." This is what you described as the "poison pill" you did not want directed at yourself, yet you do exactly this to others. Playing dog whistle politics time after time, will eventually bite you back, and with this track record you can hardly expect others to see you as the victim or martyr you are trying to paint yourself as. -- (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"I'd be willing to join a project about Men's Health and Sexuality and improve articles in that sphere." Wouldn't these topics largely overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality? And one of the main concerns of the Men's movement are the health problems faced by men: (large section copied from Men's rights movement#Health). Dimadick (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Dimadick: - Thank you. I am already somewhat involved in the Gender and LGBT studies WikiProjects. I am not a member of the men's rights movement and I think that their ideology is disgusting, baseless, and abhorrent. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
There is overlap of WikiProject interest on a number of articles - that's why its valuable to add WikiProject banners. If an editor wants to work in that overlapped subject area (Men + Sexology, LGBT + Health), they can find those more easily. It also means WikiProjects can coordinate by, for example, scheduling a month-long editing event to work on that intersecting set of articles, and invite members of both WikiProjects. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Netoholic: the opening words of your statement are bizarre: I had quietly created this WikiProject page.
You have been around long enough to know that per the opening sentence of WP:PROJ, "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia.".
So the whole point of a WikiProject is to gather a group. And that isn't achieved by acting quietly.
Regardless of all the other issues around this project, that alone makes me smell a rat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:WikiProject Men's Issues proved there is interest. The response here - ranging from suspicion to misandry - is exactly why a quiet start was appropriate. Had I done the opposite, tried to form a group prior to creating the page, you'd likely project malice in that also. WikiProjects are a chicken and the egg thing, and I guess I'm no chicken. I'll take the slings and arrows so that at least, in the end, men's topics of importance can be improved. You might want to get that rat problem taken care of. -- Netoholic @ 01:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Prince Hamlet was a ghastly selfish drama monger. -- (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I had said that I would review the subsequent discussion to see whether the project or its deletion nomination was more pointy. Having read the statement by the project creator, and the subsequent discussion, I see that neither the project creator nor the nominators are trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. The project creator is making a good-faith mistake that is disrupting Wikipedia. They think that the project will be useful, and so they have created it. It won't be useful, for all of the reasons listed above. This project is a good-faith mistake, but needs to be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon: I'm relieved you see this as a good faith effort, but I obviously disagree with it being a disruption or even likely to be a disruption. The project is already proving useful to some editors, who've started marking and assessing articles even though they might not have listed their name as a participant. You simply cannot know if this will be useful or not in the long-term. To assume it will be problematic be seems extremely sexist to me, considering that about 17 women-focused WikiProjects have proven useful and non-disruptive, and have not been subjected to deletion. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of sources/FerretsEdit

Wikipedia:List of sources/Ferrets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete narrowest of scope project subpage listing 4 issues of a magazine from 15 years ago. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete by feeding to mustelids - Abandoned page by long-inactive user. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Can't see any reader wanting to come to WP for this. Whatever it was hoping to be, it never got there. We have a WP article on Ferrets, why would we need an article with a short list of old Ferret-sources? Britishfinance (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Austria-HungaryEdit

Portal:Austria-Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal abandoned since 2006, about Austria-Hungary, a constitutional monarchy in Central and Eastern Europe between 1867 and 1918.

Created[185] in May 2006‎ by Petrovic-Njegos (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2017, and last made a portsalspace edit in May 2006[186]

It's just a static page with some boxes, whose contents have been almost unchanged in 13 years. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Austria-Hungary shows:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 150 consecutive updates.

Austria-Hungary was a major European power, so in theory this a broad topic. But in practice, it doesn't meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 10 pageviews per day.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Austria-Hungary.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to drop the dream that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages. Several different styles are avilable, e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I am not sure whether this qualifies as a broad subject area, because former empires should be considered both in terms of their extent in time and their extent in space. This was neither as large nor as long-lived as the Umayyad Caliphate or the British Empire. That question doesn't need to be answered, because this portal has not attracted either interested readers or portal maintainers (and most portals are like this one in doing neither). The head article attracted 3,724 daily page views as opposed to the 10 daily page views for the portal. Whether this is a sufficiently broad area can be decided against future guidelines when there is a new portal design proposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing breadth of subject under WP:POG. It is of course a judgement call, but two inputs to my judgement are: Portal:British Empire has a dedicated WikiProject and over 10 thousand articles in scope; this portal has a subproject and 674 articles in scope. UnitedStatesian (talk)
  • Delete: a static, abandoned portal fails its purpose. No prejudice against recreation should a maintainer be interested in actively curating it, as it may be broad enough. SITH (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Maya civilizationEdit

Portal:Maya civilization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Automated, redundant fork of the head article Maya civilization. No manual version to revert to.

This portal was created[191] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist, as an automated portal.

It draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Maya}} and the sidebar navbox {{Maya civilization}}. Both those navboxes are transcluded in the head article, so the portal adds nothing news. The despite the use of two navboxes rather than one, the redundancy is the same as at the two mass deletions of single-navbox-based portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.

Since those mass deletion discussions, I have spotted two newish features of Wikipedia which further emphasise the redundancy of this type of portal:

  1. mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  2. automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article Maya civilization, so try the image gallery by right-clicking on Maya civilization, and select "open in private window" or "open in incongnito window", and click on the image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny slideshow on Maya civilization, which draws its selection of images solely from Maya civilization. It's the same slideshow, just better in the article.

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

Maya civilization is a broad topic, so I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete:
      • This is a two-navbox automated portal, not much of an improvement over single-navbox portals.
      • Created by the portal platoon in the wave of reckless portal creation.
      • The portal has 7 daily pageviews. The head article has 4,068 daily pageviews, and there are other articles on the topic.
      • We need a list of portals that have been deleted without prejudice. Add this one to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. This portal is a redundant fork of extant navboxes.
  2. Portals require active maintenance to fulfil their purpose.
SITH (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Grand CanyonEdit

Portal:Grand Canyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal.

Created[192] in December 2016‎ by Redolta (talk · contribs), who created image subpages, but no subpages for articles.

In May 2018, Auric (talk · contribs) created Portal:Grand Canyon/Selected article/1 and Portal:Grand Canyon/Selected biography/1 so that the portal finally had some text content.

In September 2018‎, @The Transhumanist coverted[193] it to full-automated portal which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Grand Canyon}}. That made it just a bloated, redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

In May 2019 BHG restored[194] the portal to its pre-automation state.

However, it still remains a static display of two articles and rotating set of only 5 pictures. /Selected article/1 and /Selected biography/1 remain unchanged, and Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Grand Canyon shows only a small set. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Grand Canyon

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 20 consecutive updates.

I am unsure whether the Grand Canyon is a broad topic; it could been seen a narrow topic copiously documented. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this one with its content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics. Or take a difft approach, such as Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The head article has 2819 daily page views. The portal has 2 daily page views. (That is 115 page views in two months.) That is a 1400:1 ratio, but the ratio is less important than the raw fact that this is a portal that no one uses. The originator has not edited for a few months. The choices are to use the rudimentary portal, to use an automated portal. to wait for a portal maintainer, or to delete the portal and then wait for a portal author and maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Robert's reasoning. No prejudice against recreation as, while a single geographical feature, it has been extensively studied and documented, so it may pass WP:POG. SITH (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BruneiEdit

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

Abandoned micro-portal on a small country.

Created[195] in October 2017‎ by Night Lantern (talk · contribs), who also created the subpages, and then moved on to other things. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so that's fine.

However, nobody else did anything with the portal apart from formatting tweaks.

So in January 2019‎, @The Transhumanist converted[196] it to an automate format which built its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Brunei topics}}. That made it a just a bloated and redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

So on 14 May 2019‎ I reverted[197] to the pre-automated format.

But there is still nothing there. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Brunei shows nothing except Portal:Brunei/Selected picture and Portal:Brunei/Selected article, both unchanged since the day they were created.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed 20 consecutive updates.

Brunei might in theory be a broad topic. It's a sovereign country, though with a population of only 423,000. I haven't checked how extensive Wikipedia's coverage is. But in practice, it has not the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 9 pageviews per day.

This abandoned draft is just a waste of the time of any readers who are lured here. There is no reason to expect that it will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this outmoded set of content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern low-maintenance portal without content-forked sub-pages, perhaps as with Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - The portal has 9 daily pageviews. The head article has 4504 daily pageviews. The 500:1 ratio isn't that unusual, but illustrates that useless portals are useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The choice is keeping either of two types of useless portals, or deletion, without prejudice to a future useful portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: portals require active maintenance. SITH (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:California State UniversityEdit

Portal:California State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fully-automated navbox-cloned portal, with no curated version to revert to.

This portal builds its "selected general articles" list solely from the navbox {{California State University}}, of which it is therefore just a bloated and redundant fork. For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.

Since those mass deletion discussions, I have spotted two newish features of Wikipedia which further emphasise the redundancy of this type of portal:

  1. mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  2. automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article California State University, so try the image gallery by right-clicking on California State University, and select "open in private window" or "open in incognito window", and click on any image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny box slideshow on Portal:California State University.

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

This portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, a nomination by me of a single page which was hijacked by another editor with the addition of no less than 52 other portals[198][199] and a change of title. The resulting discussion of this sprawling, indiscriminate set was a bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK. It was closed on 11 April 2019 as keep 8 portals, including this one, but delete the remaining 45.

However, that close was three days before the close of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. The two WP:CENT-advertised mass MFDs have established a broad community consensus not to keep this type of automated portal. This nomination is to allow re-examination of this portal in light of that clear consensus.

I will ping the participants in the first MFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the participants at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff: @Auric, Beeblebrox, BrendonTheWizard, BrownHairedGirl, CoolSkittle, Crazynas, Espresso Addict, Guilherme Burn, Kusma, Legacypac, Northamerica1000, Pythoncoder, Reywas92, Robert McClenon, SMcCandlish, SmokeyJoe, Thryduulf, UnitedStatesian, and Hut 8.5 ... and the closer @Amorymeltzer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Average six views per day, no advantages over the parent article as a landing site for the topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cookie-cutter portal, no love detected.--Auric talk 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • User:SmokeyJoe is checking recent pageview metrics. User:BrownHairedGirl and I have been using a baseline period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019, before the attention to the need to delete trash portals caused them to be viewed to verify that they were trash portals.
      • I see 3 average daily pageviews for the portal (even worse than SJ), and 685 average daily pageviews for the head article.
      • Because this is a university system rather than one university, the total pageviews for the system include the member universities and colleges, so that the ratio of article views to portal views is even higher.
      • Because a university system is described by multiple articles, a properly maintained portal could be useful in providing information about the system. This is not a properly maintained portal.
      • Since the nomination doesn't clearly say that it is without prejudice to a properly maintained portal, I will say that I am recommending deletion without prejudice to a properly designed and maintained portal based on future portal guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice against a curated portal that does considerably more than this auto-portal. We actually probably should have portals on university systems and major universities, but I agree that one this bare doesn't offer benefits over the article page (or, more particularly, its navbox). I'm leaning toward the view that a portal needs to do more than what a single navbox does, and more than the main article on the topic does, or it is a redundant page. I think this is a reasonable compromise position, and the various larger-scale discussions of portals on WP are basically herding us all in this direction.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I think portals on university systems and major universities is not a step towards the improvement of the encyclopedia, but a backwards step. What would they do, feature content on leading universities, and present that content stripped of explicit sourcing? Which universities would be featured most prominently? The room for bias and promotion is huge. A much better idea than such portals would be to work on the article University system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice per SMcCandlish. A curated portal about the University of California system would be a good addition to the encyclopaedia, without any more inherent issues of bias or promotion than any other portal about multiple entities or organisations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Without more. Without less. These organisations, universities, compete for prestige and money and customers, and actively self promote. If Portals were of any visibility (use), then they would be targets of promotion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The ITN section of this portal currently contains an article which is not (as far as I can tell) accessible from the Nav Box or either of the articles (either the main one or the specific campus mentioned). That's fine, I'm pretty sure putting a mention in the articles would be undue weight, but it is appropriate in the portal. If the idea is that these portals are 'mini' main-pages, then this portal is doing it's job. If I were interested in the happenings of CSU, this gives me information I might not otherwise have been able to access or connect (here on WP at least). My rationale on the first MfD was that prima facie the topics should have portals, not that they should necessarily be in this form. I'm pretty neutral on the deletion at this point, but if that is the way it goes it should be without prejudice for recreation. Crazynas t 02:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Crazynas, that single article in the "In the news" section is captured by the temaplate call {{Transclude selected current events | California State University | days=45 | header={{Box-header colour|In the news }}|max=6}}
That makes it pick up all news items in the last 45 days.
So I did a test of 900 days, to see what that would pick up: Portal:California State University/In the news test.
As you can see, it still produces only the one item.
So if that box had been in place for the last 900, days then it would have been empty from 30 November 2016 until 27 April 2019. It it will empty again after 11 June 2019.
There's no point in keeping portal pages just for that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Needlessly forks content from extant navboxes.
  2. Of questionable topic breadth.
  3. Active maintenance is required for portals to fulfil their purpose.
SITH (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 14, 2019Edit

Portal:Atmospheric scienceEdit

Portal:Atmospheric science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static portal, abandoned since 2006.

Created[200] in February 2006‎ as a conventional-for-the-time set of boxes each populated by single subpage.

Converted[201] in September 2006 to an all-one-page format with the note "The major updates should appear every month. We develop this portal slightly differently from majority of portals by grouping all text in one page".

This format seem to have had two updates (2 October 2006[202] and 31 Oct 2006[203]), and then lapsed into static text with occasional tweaks. See e.g. the minimal textual change between 31 October 2006 and 13 May 2018[204]: no new topics, no change of picture.

In September 2018‎, @The Transhumanist coverted[205] it to a fully-automated format based on the navbox {{Atmospheric sciences}}, of which it became just a bloated redundant fork. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

In May 2019, I reverted[206] that automation, restoring the last non-automated version.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 150 consecutive updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than even thsi topic's C-class head article Atmospheric science, with its navbox {{Atmospheric sciences}}.

In theory, this might be a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has clearly not attracted maintainers, and I fear that however many articles are available, the topic attracts too little interest to do so in the future.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned experiment, and time to abandon the [dream that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, e.g. Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern or Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The pageview metrics tell a different story than usual, with a different general conclusion about portals, and the same specific conclusion (Delete without prejudice). This portal (in its previous location) has had an average of 11 daily pageviews. The head article, Atmospheric science, has had an average of 36 daily pageviews. Neither the portal nor the head article is being viewed much. This is a case where a properly maintained and curated portal could be used to facilitate viewing of the scattered articles on weather. But this portal is a static display. (In aviation, a static display is an airplane that won't fly, a museum piece. A static display misses the whole point that the atmosphere is what supports flight.) A properly maintained portal might provide readers with interesting views of varying subject areas. A non-maintained or improperly maintained portal doesn't do anything. Delete it without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: we can't keep an abandoned portal, we can't keep an automated fork, so we have to delete it but without prejudice to recreation provided it passes WP:POG and has active maintenance. SITH (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Jawaharlal NehruEdit

Portal:Jawaharlal Nehru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete There are very few cases where a single individual meets the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline, and this is not one of those cases. That this is a one-click-created single-page portal makes the deletion case even stronger. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete -
      • There have been 36 average daily page views for the portal, as opposed to 7,969 daily page views for the head article.
      • This is a one-click wonder. That is reason enough to delete it or replace it, and there is no candidate for a replacement.
      • The nominator wrote: 'There are very few cases where a single individual meets the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline'. I agree. The nominator continues: 'and this is not one of those cases'. I don't know. The subject of this portal is the founder of a great nation. User:UnitedStatesian Is that enough?
      • We should not be basing this decision on breadth-of-subject. There are other reasons to delete this specific portal. Therefore this should be a nomination without prejudice to a future portal in accordance with future requirements. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. for two reasons:
  1. Narrow scope: As the nominator notes, this is a narrow topic. Nehru was undoubtedly a major figure in Indian history, but we don't have enough coverage of the man and his works to support a portal. Instead, this portal is bloated by topics related to the administration of which he was the leader. Nehru was the Prime Minister of the cabinet government of a parliamentary democracy, not of a presidential democracy like the United States, let alone a dictator who ruled by decree.
  2. Uncurated portal: Being pedantic, the nominator is slightly incorrect to say that this is a one-click-created single-page portal. It's a two-click portal. Still spam, but slightly more sophisticated spam.
    The portal was initially created as a navbox-clone, with its selected articles list drawn solely from Template:{{PAGENAME}}, which resolves to Template:Jawaharlal Nehru. That doesn't exist, so the first version of the portal[207] just had a Lua error in the "selected articles" box.
    16 days later, @The Transhumanist appeared and converted[208] it to use an embedded list, which is why it is listed in Category:Automated portals with embedded list. However, while list appears to be curated, it is simply an indiscriminate dump of the contents of the bottom layer Category:Jawaharlal Nehru and of the bottom layer of one of its subcats: Category:Nehru administration. This is the same issue as at numerous other similar MFDs, e.g. Volume, Drawing, Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks. It's simply disguised spam. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: narrow topic, uncurated and abandoned, redundant fork of related navboxes. SITH (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:LiechtensteinEdit

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

Micro-portal on the micro-state of Liechtenstein. Abandoned since 2008/10, and the WikiProject is defunct.

Created[209] in June 2008‎ by Extransit (talk · contribs), a former admin who last edited in 2016. Extransit's last edit to any of the pages in this portal was in 2012 (see Extransit's portalspace contribs).

By May 2018‎ the portal was still just a shell, so @The Transhumanist (TTH) tagged it[210] for speedy deletion per WP:P2. That speedy was correctly declined, because P2 is only for "a topic for which there is only a stub header article or fewer than three non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to present under the title of that portal". There are way more than three non-stub articles on Liechtenstein, though you might doubt that from looking at Portal:Liechtenstein.

In September 2018‎‎, TTH converted[211] the portal to an fully-automated format which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Liechtenstein topics}}. That made it just a bloated, redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

So today I reverted[212] to the newest non-automated version.

Unfortunately, that's just a brief excerpt of the lead of the head article, a map, and redlinked anniversary. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Liechtenstein.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Liechtenstein shows what happened here. Extransit set out to create a page for every day of the year, each containing a Liechtenstein-related anniversary. An ambitious plan, and as happens to all of, it turned out to be too ambitious. Only 19 of these day-pages exist, all created by Extransit in 2008–10, and all abandoned since; see also the list at Portal:Liechtenstein/dates. I have left a copy of the list at WP:WikiProject Liechtenstein/Dates; the WikiProject is defunct, but the list may be of some use to someone some day.

There is nothing here to keep. Any editor who sets out to build a real portal, which actually adds value for readers, would be daft to try to revive the anniversary project. And there is nothing else worth keeping; even the shell of the portal is way out of date. A revival would do best to start afresh.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The portal has 7 daily pageviews. The head article (to which the portal doesn't link) has 4,606 daily pageviews. BHG writes: 'There is nothing to keep.' There is nothing to keep. No need for silver bullets. There already was an attempt to kill this portal with a 92.5% silver bullet, by TTH, who just didn't shoot straight, which wastes silver. A spear should do. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: here's the choice:
  1. Abandoned non-automated portal.
  2. Automated redundant fork.
  3. Delete without prejudice to recreation if a portal creator is willing to actively curate and maintain a well-crafted portal.
Obviously, I'm going for 3. SITH (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Right-wing populismEdit

Portal:Right-wing populism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Related discussions:

There are so many problems with this portal. It was primarily created and maintained by User:Broter (after remaking the portal in 2016) who is now under a community banned implemented by my adopter for pushing an Islamophobic POV. This is on top of their TBAN from topics related to islam broadly construed.

Now having established that the primary maintainer will most likely never edit this portal again, I move onto the technical problems with it. Just last month, Portal:Right-wing populism/box-header was deleted per G8; and unlike previous requests for undeletion, no one seemed to notice this one? Whatever, my point is that it's pretty much broken now without a box header.

Then we get into the content, it's all semi-automated (yet still curated). I'm slightly impressed at this point considering how broken this thing is. Using {{Transclude random excerpt}}, the following pages are featured:

That part isn't so poor, but it's the Topics section which gives me concerns. It lists all these parties with no context whatsoever. From factions of the GOP to Solidary Poland (sic), and from United Russia (factions) & Justice and Development Party to AFD, UKIP, Sweden Democrats, and New Zealand First; as well as Brazilian Labour Renewal Party to Libertarian, Direct, Democrat-- it's all there and without any context nor citations (because portals shouldn't need them).

Final points:

(1) Much like it's left-wing counterpart, the head article is start class and not even a level-four vital article (that'd be populism).
(2) The portal lists WikiProject Politics as a maintainer of the portal, I assure you that none of us have none of us are interested in it. We have yet to even assess the head article as within our scope.
(3)The redirects will most likely need to be deleted as well except for P:RIGHT which should go back to being a redirect to Portal:Conservatism (this change was never discussed).

(4) On top of all that, this portal is somehow both redundant to any potential Portal:Populism and Portal:Conservatism. There really isn't anything worth saving in this portal at all.

Therefore I simply say, just delete it. –MJLTalk 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong delete with fire and all other available means of destruction. Hopeless POV-magnet. Good catch, @MJL, and v well-researched nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • This portal was mentioned in the ban discussion for User:Broter. Maybe it should have been deleted then, but it should be deleted now.
      • This portal had 38 daily page views, and the head article had 827 daily page views. That is a relatively high number of page views for the portal and a low number of page views for the article, which may be consistent with the controversial nature of the subject.
      • When Portal:Left-wing populism was deleted, I suggested a merge to Portal:Populism, which has never existed. (Oops.)
      • We can delete this one with fire, water, rubber bullets, and lead bullets if necessary. Save your silver bullets; we don't need them for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV-magnet. Neither left-wing populism nor right-wing populism is a good candidate for a portal subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: good catch, if portals are going to be a separate entity, it's no wonder that instead of POV-pushing on the article, which is bound to be detected, that the more intelligent of the POV-pushers will try to do the same with the portals. SITH (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AcipenseriformesEdit

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

Delete Trying a third time on this one-click created single-page portal: a single order of fishes, like all non-mammalian taxonomic orders, does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline; this one can be more than adequately covered in Portal:Fishes. Previous discussions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Acipenseriformes (no consensus) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Acipenseriformes (2nd nomination) (withdrawn). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As general consensus is very much against automated portals, this one should go as well. Gazamp (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • In this case, the real issue is not only with the portal but with the subject. The portal averaged 4 daily page views. The lead article averaged 43 daily page views. That's enough to justify the article. The recognition of the order as a taxon is enough to justify the article, without regard to page views. But a portal is supposed to function as an enhanced main page. The article isn't a main page. The article is a page.
      • We don't need an automated portal. We don't need a manual portal. We don't need a virtual portal. We need an article. We have an article.
      • With prejudice, which means pre-judgment, because we have judged that we don't need a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too narrow a topic to satisfy 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".
However the nominator is wrong to say that this is a one-click created single-page portal. It actually uses an embedded list of pages, which is why it is categorised in Category:Automated portals with embedded list. I have not checked to see whether the list is curated, or whether it is simply an indiscriminate scoop of page titles as at so many recent MFDs, e.g. Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Crown of AragonEdit

Portal:Crown of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Reverted back to the version before TTH's one-page conversion: the abandoned micro-portal (1 article, 2 pictures) that does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete:
      • This sort of was a portal about an entity that sort of was a country once.
      • Neither this version, abandoned since 2015, nor the automated version, seems to serve a real need.
      • I don't know if I agree that every country and every state should have a portal. I think that I agree with User:SmokeyJoe that when the community decides not to scrap portals, they didn't anything other than that occasionally portals may be good, but I don't think that anyone decided that portals are ever required or even strongly recommended. However, this hasn't been a country for centuries (and might never have been one because it was more than one country).
      • There were 7 daily page views of the portal and 552 daily page views of the head article.
      • No idea whether this deletion should be with prejudice or without prejudice, so that is reason to delete without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete in favour of Crown of Aragon. Completely redundant to the mainspace article, and worse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another abandoned micro-portal, redundant to the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned and narrow. SITH (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CataloniaEdit

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

Fully-automated navbox-based portal, with no non-automated version to restore. It is just a bloated and redundant fork the navbox {{Catalonia topics}}. For an explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.

This page was created in February 2012‎ as a redirect to Portal:Catalan-speaking countries.

The page was converted[213] to an automated navbox-clone portal in December 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist.

It was redirected again[214] to the same target on 22 April 2019‎ by @UnitedStatesian, but that was reverted[215] a day later by @Jacobí. The redirect cannot be restored because the redirect target Portal:Catalan-speaking countries was deleted on 28 April 2019 per WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Catalan-speaking countries. And redirecting it to Portal:Spain would be a horribly POV act, because Catalonia is split about 50:50 over whether to be independent from Spain; redirecting the portal to Spain could be viewed as partisan. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

PS I forgot to include that I propose that this portal be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • The subject may be a country, or it may be a state. We will possibly know better in 2030.
      • The portal has had an average 5 daily page views. The head article has had an average 2600 daily page views.
      • The current portal is redundant, and there is no predecessor and no merge target.
      • Delete this portal without prejudice to a properly developed portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep:
  • I don't undestand the reasons of deletion. Independent or not, region or nation (but that's not the point, Scotland or Wales aren't independent but have their proper portals, and nobody finds this strange), Catalonia is a topic with enough information, articles and popular interest (although not reflected here, due to multiple causes, like the lack of links or the poor updating of the portal itself). I'm agree about the fact it is redundant, but is not an argument of deletion, to the contrary, this indicates that it needs to be improved (any suggestions about that?). We must count how old is this portal: less than 3 months. It is too young yet to judge and it has an enormous potential to grow. I insist, not delete, but improve, specially after the supression of portal:Catalan-speaking countries. --Jacobí (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jacobí, I would be happy to accept deletion without prejudice to re-creation of a portal which actually adds value to readers. I usually include that in the nomination, and inadvertently omitted it here. I will add it now.
The main problem is that this automated navbox-clone adds nothing to the head article, thereby failing the core principle of WP:PORTAL: "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects".
Creating a portal which actually adds value for readers takes a lot of work. If some editor wants to do that work, and to commit to the ongoing task of maintain it, then the few seconds needed to re-create the shell of a portal are a trivial addition to the many hours of hard work needed. And in the meantime, this automated spam by an editor who created nearly 4,000 automated spam portals is just a waste of the time of readers. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:RuPaul's Drag RaceEdit

Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A fully-automated portal which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}}, of which it is therefore just a bloated and redundant fork.

For an explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.

Since those mass deletion discussions, I have spotted two newish features of Wikipedia which further emphasise the redundancy of this type of portal:

  1. mouseover: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  2. automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. This automated portal draws its image gallery solely from the head article RuPaul's Drag Race, so try the image gallery by right-clicking on RuPaul's Drag Race, and select "open in private window" or "open in incongnito window", and click on the image. Then compare that full-screen slideshow with the tiny slideshow on Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race.

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

This portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race, which closed as "keep" five days before the start of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. The two WP:CENT-advertised mass MFDs established a broad community consensus not to keep this type of automated portal. This nomination is to allow re-examination of this portal in light of that clear consensus.

I will ping the participants in the first MFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging participants in the previous MFD: @Another Believer, Brocicle, Kbabej, Legacypac, Levivich, Nihlus, Northamerica1000, Paul2520, and Robert McClenon --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Also pinging the closer of the first MFD: @Amorymeltzer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Related discussions. This portal was created by Happypillsjr (talk · contribs), who created over 100 other navbox-based portals. Most of them were deleted in one well-attended discussion: WP:Miscellany for deletion/83 more navbox-based portals. There were also over several dozen other discussions on other portals created by the same editor, listed in the notifications at User talk:Happypillsjr and at User talk:Happypillsjr/Archive 6. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I said six weeks ago that this portal was created in a wave of reckless portal creation. It still was created in a wave of reckless portal creation, and there is now a consensus as to why automated portals are not a good idea. Perhaps this time we don't need to discuss that we are not discussing either deleting the article or deleting (cancelling) the TV show. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The head article has 6875 daily page views, which illustrates that this is a relatively popular article about a relatively popular TV show. The portal has 8 daily page views. Fans of the show are not relying on the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete A single television show does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – It's a fork of a navbox, and this television show is not a topic broad enough to meet WP:POG. I don't know if any television show is broad enough, but this one isn't it, for the reasons I stated in the first MfD. Levivich 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: a TV show isn't broad enough to warrant a portal. Furthermore, this just forks the navbox, making it redundant. SITH (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BadmintonEdit

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

Mini-portal abandoned since 2010. Just a skimpy static page.

Created[216] in February 2010‎ by Cheong Kok Chun (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2011. No sign of nay maintainer since then.

It was converted[217] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist to an automated format drawing its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{International badminton}}, of which it therefore became just a bloated and redundant fork. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals). The use of {{International badminton}} also narrowed the scope, excluding the national and sub-national levels of the sport.

That automation was reverted[218] on 14 May 2019‎ by BHG.

The resulting current version is just a skimpy static page. There is no list of topics, just one selected article and one selected biog. The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Badminton is short:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 consecutive updates. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Badminton

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 this portal got only 17 pageviews per day, compared with 5,793 daily pageviews for the head article Badminton.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the hop that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without the high-maintenance, content-forked sub-pages. Examples of the various styles include Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The choices are between: the heritage portal that has been abandoned since 2011 and rescued, or the automated portal, which is an inherent non-entity, and besides excluded the national and lower levels of play; or a totally new portal; or the head article without the portal. We can see that the ratio of users of the head article to users of the portal is greater than 300:1, so it probably isn't urgent to get a new portal. However, this portal can be disposed of. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned, unused, potentially of wide enough scope, so delete without prejudice. SITH (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:The SopranosEdit

Portal:The Sopranos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Portal based on a narrow topic, i.e. a single TV series. Fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

This portal has been through several versions since it was created in September 2018‎, all built by the creator Happypillsjr (talk · contribs), who seems to have been experimenting with formats. It was:

  1. created[222] as an automated portal which built its article list solely off the navbox {{The Sopranos}}, of which it was therefore just a bloated and redundant fork. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).
  2. Converted[223] on 1 October 2018 to an old-style manually-curated format with subpages (see list at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:The Sopranos)
  3. Converted[224] on 12 October 2018 to use an embedded list. With some tweaks, that is how it appears now: see current version

Because of the narrow scope, all these version share the same fundamental problem: they don't meet the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". The Good-article-class head article The Sopranos with its navbox {{The Sopranos}} offers at least the same functionality, because it displays a list of episodes, a list of major characters, and a list of the main actors.

The portal offers a click-for-next set of previews of each of those 3 sets, but (unlike most portals) no image gallery.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software mean that the head article does this by default for ordinary readers who are not logged in:

  • mouseover on any of the linked list items shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links
  • automatic imagery galleries: for ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal

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

So the portal adds nothing for the reader. Therefore I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted, with prejudice against recreation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete:
      • The pageview metric comparison is the most lopsided that I have seen. In the two months from 1 January to 28 February, there were 135 total page views of the portal, or an average of 2 daily page views. By contrast, there were 11,235 average page views of the head article. That is a ratio of more than 500:1.
      • In other words, viewers are using Wikipedia to learn about the show, but they are not using the portal to learn about the show.
      • The head article is its own main page, and doesn't need an enhanced main page, and automation won't provide an enhanced main page.
      • Not a "broad area". Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: too narrow scope, portal is clearly unused. SITH (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The ratio between views of the article and the portal is more than 5000:1. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Oz (TV series)Edit

Portal:Oz (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist. Note relisting comment below.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This portal is very too narrow and it doesn't show images and this portal topic only shows characters.-- Happypillsjr 19:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete Broken portal. Better covered by Portal:Oz.--Auric talk 10:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete lack of scope - single tv series. Also lua error. Legacypac (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I found that the portal was tagged with a link to this unclosed deletion discussion, but I can't find any trace of the discussion having ever actually been listed at WP:MFD. So I am adding it to MFD as a relisting, which seems like the least worst way of recovering the situation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, for two reasons:
  1. This is is an automated portal, which draws its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Oz (TV series)}}, of which it is therefore just a bloated and redundant fork. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).
  2. Per the nominator, who is also the creator of the portal, the scope is too narrow to satisfy 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) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • A broken portal that provides a red LUA error on attempting to display a slide show for the image.
      • This portal had 22 page views between 1 January 2019 and 28 February 2019. That is total page views, less than 1 page view per day. The head article had an average of 1494 page views in that period. No one is using this portal, which isn't surprising when it is an unfinished robot.
      • Automated portals are not useful anyway.
      • With prejudice to re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: too narrow scope. SITH (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:PigeonIP/RMsEdit

User:PigeonIP/RMs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page serves no encyclopedia-building function (rather the opposite), and its presence as a "hit-list" of WP:RMs to attempt, against already long-established consensus (see list of precedent RMs at WP:BREEDDAB) is a recipe for significant disruption if this editor becomes active again (dormant since mid-2017, aside from brief reappearances in 2018). The editor was very active in 2014 in tendentiously pursuing the renames on this hit-list (mostly by resisting WP:CONSISTENCY RMs to what are their current names), with what appears to be a 100% failure rate. The titling patterns for breed-related articles were also tightened in the interim by the WP:BREEDCAPSRFC at Village Pump.

The editor who created the page is a questionably competent user of English and likely should not have anything to do with RM or other MoS/AT/DAB-related matters. A concern was raised on the user's talk page about this WP:CIR issue, but they firmly declared an intent to keep "correcting" English Wikipedia.

If you go over the list I'm MfD'ing, you'll see that it's all:

  • A loathing for natural disambiguation and an explicit intent to move all natural-DAB animal breed names to parenthetic – despite years of overwhelming and consistent consensus against that idea (going back much further than 2014, when I started keeping track).
  • A confused view that if breeders call something a "Pekin" when talking to other chicken breeders, that "Pekin chicken" is wrong – a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:AT#DISAMBIGUATION, and of English usage patterns (two cat people say "Burmese", in context, but will say "Burmese cat" to a dog person – natural disambiguation isn't something WP invented, but an everyday feature of the language).
  • A confused view that if something has two conflicting names in English, we should instead switch to German or whatever – against WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:USEENGLISH.

PS: The amount of time spent decorating this page with meticulous, pointless icons is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOT#WEBHOST issue, as well. It's not productive for any editor to spend time festooning a gallery of their anti-consensus lobbying activities.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: there's nothing wrong with using the userspace as a tracking feature (I had five sandboxes with PetScan dumps in them at one point). However, it's a bit stupid to
a) Publicly host your evil plan to undermine consensus on Wikipedia page-naming policies
b) Have such a plan in the first place
It'd be a bit like having User:Example/List of articles which need more negative coverage. It's just counterproductive. SITH (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see that I had difficulty in discussing breeds of ducks at the dispute resolution noticeboard with this editor because of their difficulty with English. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete for now, unless this editor provides a better response than has been my experience. This is a Weak Delete because I don't see that much disruption in what is only a misguided plan in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Negros OrientalEdit

Portal:Negros Oriental (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Abandoned micro-portal (one article, one bio, one picture) on the 19th most-populated province of the the Philippines, thus failing the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete:
      • 7 daily page views for portal; 206 daily page views for article
      • Another heritage portal by a now-inactive editor
      • This appears to be a first-level administrative subdivision, so delete without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Should really be a P2. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Abandoned since 2013. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete If that's for good! I was busy in the last few years that updating the portal regularly may no longer be posible. Emaniuz (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned and far too narrow scope. SITH (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 13, 2019Edit

Portal:UlaanbaatarEdit

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

Abandoned mini-portal on the city of Ulaanbaatar, capital of Mongolia.

Created[225] in September 2012‎ by Mongol Emperor (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2013. So far as I can see, it has never had an identified maintainer.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Ulaanbaatar shows a very limited set of subpages:

And that's all. A static display of the lede of the head article, plus one pic and the lead of another article doesn't cone with a million miles of the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". This is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Ulaanbaatar.

It is not fair on readers to continue to lure them to waste their time on this stillborn page.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal has the most interesting pageview metrics that I have seen recently. The average number of daily pageviews is 0, with an occasional day when there was 1 pageview. The article has 1336 daily pageviews. Either publicize this portal so as to have it be viewed, or delete it. The latter is more obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Per WP:PORTAL, portals require active maintenance and curation to fulfil their purpose. This fails that part.
  2. Per WP:POG, portals require a broad scope, with a single selected article, this is clearly not the case here.
SITH (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SindhEdit

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

Another abandoned portal on a province of Pakistan: Sindh.

Created[227] in August 2011‎ Mar4d (talk · contribs), who also created most of the sub-pages.

It escaped the rash of conversion to an automated fork of a single navbox (For a full explanation of why that type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

However it seems never to have had an active maintainer, and the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Sindh is sparse:

  • Portal:Sindh/Selected article/1, same topic (Indus Valley Civilisation) since the day after its creation in 2011[228]
    • No other selected articles
  • Portal:Sindh/Selected biography/1, same topic (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) since its creation in 2011[229]
    • No other selected biographies
  • Portal:Sindh/Selected picture/1 since its creation in 2001
    • No other selected pictures
    • But note this page has not been used in the portal since 2018, when @The Transhumanist robotically converted[230] it build a slideshow from the set of images in head article Sindh and the article Culture of Sindh.
      This was pointless, because a slideshow of each article's images is already built into each article by the Wikimedia software. For ordinary readers who are not logged in, clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than the click-for-next image gallery on a portal.
  • Portal:Sindh/Sindh news/Wikinews, populated by a bot, and last updated on 7 January 2015. But you wouldn't know that from the portal, because the list is displayed as "month day" (e.g. "June 6"), without the year. So the poor reader isn't even told that the set of "news" in front of them is actually from 2014.
  • Portal:Sindh/Did you know/1 has had no additions since August 2011[231]

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 90 consecutive updates. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Sindh and its navbox {{Sindh topics}}.

In theory, this province of 47 million people is a broad topic. But in practice, it has never met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the dream that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal which actually adds value for readers, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages. There several available styles, including the very difft approaches used at Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. As it is, this portal is not particularly useful for anyone who would use such a portal. Rebuilding it from the ground up would be much more convenient than trying to fix it as it is. Rlin8 (··📧) 23:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • 9 daily pageviews for the portal. 1298 daily pageviews for the head article.
      • The comment about news is true of many portals.
      • Delete without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. WP:PORTAL requires portals have active maintenance, not the case here.
  2. WP:POG could be met, but as BHG says, it never has been here.
  3. The portal is a fork of the head article and its navbox.
SITH (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Pakistan Super LeagueEdit

Portal:Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Pakistan Super League is a narrow topic, just a single league of 6 cricket teams. This portal is redundant to the broader Portal: Cricket. As can be seen at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Pakistan Super League, most of its sub-pages have already been moved to the broader cricket portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - Daily pageviews for portal 12. Daily pageviews for head article 3861. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I have to disagree here; the PSL project is not a narrow topic, but covers a large base of articles ranging from Pakistani to international cricketers featuring in the league, as well as several dedicated sub-articles of its own. I don't understand why all the subpages were moved to the Cricket portal without discussion with any of the editors involved at WP:PSL. There should have been a discussion on it first. Mar4d (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL:: can you chime in on your logic behind the merge? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: The portal was pretty decently kept up with; but with the same logic as MFD:P:NHL, I figured this would never survive a deletion discussion here. By moving the subpages as I did, the portal still functions but also serves the wider Portal:Cricket as well. Mar4d has a good point that the scope is not as narrow as many here are suggesting (cricket is HUGE is Pakistan), but I do think there is a lot of overlap with P:Cricket. –MJLTalk 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @MJL: where do you stand on the salvaging of the other sports league portals, as you said in MFD:P:NHL that you were working on in advance of a bulk nomination? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian: I kind of got backlogged with other nominations. There was like hundreds of subpages I could have gone through with this. The main problem as I had was trying to figure out exactly what system of subpage transclusion worked the best, so I gave up on salvaging anything but the initial ones and low-hanging fruit. Also, my track record for bulk nominations is pretty poorMJLTalk 17:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I just thought about this right after I clicked published changes. If I had pagemover rights, I probably would get that process started again because moving pages was the biggest obstacle tbh. However, I don't want to request additional rights for myself at this time because I don't consider myself a trusted user by the community. –MJLTalk 17:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: I have pagemover rights and am happy to coordinate with you and perform any moves you require; hit me up my talkpage if you want to take me up on this. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete barely used portal and the scope is narrow, it's for one competition. Everything else e.g. international cricketers, can be covered in Portal: Cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete limited scope, minimal usage, pretty straight-forward delete. Harrias talk 09:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Portal:Cricket suffices.
  2. WP:POG isn't met here.
  3. WP:PORTALs require active maintenance.
SITH (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:New CaledoniaEdit

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

Delete Similar to Portal:Mayotte and Portal:French Polynesia, the subject of this minimalist portal (pop. <300k) does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Portal:France can cover this more than adequately. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete due to the fact that the subject of this portal is not important enough to qualify for its own portal. Rlin8 (··📧) 23:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Portal has average 3 daily pageviews. Lead article has average 2253 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - But do not necessarily agree that the subject is not important enough. An overseas collectivity of France is a first-level administrative subdivision, like a state of the United States or of India, except that France is a unitary republic, so that subdivisions are not fully self-governing, as in India or the US. Therefore without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: could be broad enough, but it currently isn't. Doesn't have active maintenance, per WP:PORTAL. SITH (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per noninator. Narrow topic, fails 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) 02:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:UrduEdit

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

Micro-portal on the Urdu language. Abandoned since 2012, with nothing of value.

Created[232] in October 2012‎ by Rachitrali (talk · contribs), whose last portalspace edit was later in October 2012[233] and who was blocked in 2017 as a sockpuppet.

It avoided the rash of converting portals to automated forks of a navbox.

However, Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Urdu is a very limited set of sub-pages:

  • Portal:Urdu/DYK isn't a DYK at all. It's just a paragraph with no article linked to its core theme, which is that Urdu is one of the two official languages of Pakistan
  • Portal:Urdu/Quote is unchanged since is creation in 2012
  • Portal:Urdu/Selected article, unchanged since creation in 2012 as Urdu language, which is just a redirect to Urdu. Pointless
  • Portal:Urdu/ Selected picture, same picture as on creation in 2012[234] ... but unused in the article since 17 January 2019, when @The Transhumanist changed the code[235] to make the portal slurp images from the head article Urdu and Pakistani literature. This was a bad move, because:
    1. automatic imagery galleries are already built into head the head article, as for any other article. For ordinary readers who are not logged in, clinking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
    2. Including Pakistani literature ignore the polylingual nature of that topic: It covers is Pakistani literature in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Seraiki, Balochi, Pushto and Sindhi.
    3. Including Pakistani literature unbalances the selection. There are 5 times as many Urdu speakers in India as in Pakistan.

In these cases I usually note the lack of updates. In this case there are none, but the more significant factor is that there is almost nothing here that isn't already in the head article. Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Urdu and its navbox {{Urdu topics}}.

In theory, this language with 100 million speakers is a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 12 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft. This abandoned relic has not attracted maintainers in 7 years, so there is no reason to expect that it will imminently attract magical editors who want to give it some actual content. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this minimalist relic; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages. There are several examples, but here are two v difft ones: Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Yet another sock portal. Also as argued by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. WP:PORTALs require active maintenance and curation to fulfil their raison d'etre.
  2. Does not currently meet WP:POG, but active maintenance after curated recreation may change this.
So currently, it's delete. SITH (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:PumpkinsEdit

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

Delete I think this is the last of the single-page automated portals on individual foods that therefore fails the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Daily average of 3 pageviews for the portal and 924 pageviews for the head article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is an automated portal, and that is an argument in itself for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even with the whole fiasco over the automated portals aside, this portal is not nearly enough to qualify for its own portal, and we've already had many single food item portals deleted here in MfD. Rlin8 (··📧) 23:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. Individual foodstuff; unlikely to meet WP:POG.
  2. Automated creation warrants automated deletion.
SITH (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Gilgit-BaltistanEdit

Portal:Gilgit-Baltistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal on the Gilgit-Baltistan province of Pakistan. Abandoned since 2012.

Created[236] in September 2012‎ by Rachitrali (talk · contribs), whose last portalspace edit was in October 2012[237] and who was blocked in 2017 as a sockpuppet.

It avoided the rash of converting portals to automated forks of a navbox.

However, Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Gilgit-Baltistan a limited set of sub-pages:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 85 consecutive updates.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Gilgit-Baltistan and its navbox {{Gilgit-Baltistan topics}}.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages. Examples include Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Another portal by a blocked sock. The usual comments apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. WP:POG scope, potentially wide enough, isn't at the moment.
  2. WP:PORTALs require automated or active maintenance, this has neither.
Therefore, delete with the usual caveat. SITH (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Canadian8958/sandboxEdit

User:Canadian8958/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Canadian902143/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Ocean912345/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: This user is using several sockpuppets to host excessive unrelated material, related to some alternative history forum. Contrary to WP:UPNOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Nearly all edits by User:Canadian8958/Canadian902143/Ocean912345 are to his/her own sandbox, so this user is misusing WP to host unrelated personal stuff, not here to contribute in a meaningful way. -- P 1 9 9   17:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ocean912345. Clearly a misuse of web hosting. Probably qualifies as G3 as hoax. However, it is not necessarily one user doing this. CheckUser can determine that. It may really be three editors sharing sandboxes playing some sort of game. Delete anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rlin8 (··📧) 23:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ocean912345. Is the information fake, hoax, or correct? It looks like someone using mutliple accounts without any attempt to hide the fact, possibly due simply to losing a password. The accounts have made zero talk posts. Give them a while to respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Was this the guy that made articles for two probably fictional Rhode Island politicians a year or so ago, though he listed them as losers against real politicians? RobDuch (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until the conclusion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ocean912345. Content analysis and poor sourcing suggests this wouldn't pass AFC standards, so it's a weak delete anyway. SITH (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Why wait for the sockpuppet investigation? Regardless of that outcome, all 3 pages are still excessive unrelated material, whether it is 1 user or 3... -- P 1 9 9   12:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: pages User:Canadian8958/sandbox and User:Canadian902143/sandbox have been blanked. But this user may be gaming the system to avoid deletion, and then restore the pages after the MfD. I still argue for deletion. -- P 1 9 9   12:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I just would like to explain myself, I had three different snadboxes due to the fact that I got locked out of two previous accounts. I have moved everything from those two sandboxes into the sandbox registered under this account. I was not the person who made articles about fictional Rhode Island politicians and I'm not playing any game with this. I am one single user and there is not three. I will ultimately respect any decisions that are made. thank you. (talk) 4:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - An apparent half-truth, likely intended to confuse and deceive because partly true. User:Ocean912345 and User:Canadian8958 have been active simultaneously in April 2019. Canadian902143 and Canadian8958 did not overlap. There were two accounts active at the same time, either one human using two accounts, or two humans using two accounts and sharing unreal data. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see that all of the future election material has been deleted, perhaps in order to avoid having a hoax tag put on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The content here is all infoboxes and member tables for alternate timeline elections, such as a 2015 Alberta election that got won by Wildrose instead of the NDP; a 2018 Ontario election that still got won by the Conservatives but featured the Liberals taking five times as many seats as they really did and pipping the NDP for second place; a forthcoming Canadian federal election that presumes to already know who's going to win it; a 2018 Quebec election that falsifies the PQ and QS standings; a 2012 Russian presidential election won by the fictional Viktor Petrov from House of Cards instead of the real-world Vladimir Putin; a completely hypothetical NDP federal cabinet led by Prime Minister Jack Layton (okay, admittedly I wish this had been real, but it wasn't and I digress); a different completely hypothetical federal cabinet led by Doug Ford that consists entirely of members of Canadian provincial legislatures; a 2015 Sudbury byelection won by Suzanne Shawbonquit (I wish) instead of Glenn Thibeault; a 1993 federal election that features Kim Campbell's PCs retaining official opposition status instead of falling off the cliff; multiple completely imaginary 2018 Canadian federal elections with completely different leaders than any of the Canadian parties really had in 2018; and a completely nonexistent referendum on Canadian accession to the European Union. Creator does not appear to be the person who created hoax Rhode Island politicians, unless they're a sockpuppet — but the creator does have a deleted contribution of a premature draft for a 2020 NDP leadership election which is obviously crystal balling at best as of today. There are other wikis where you're allowed to make up counterfactual alternate history scenarios, but Wikipedia is not one of them, and our sandbox capabilities do not exist to help you work on contributions to those wikis instead of this one either. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Macedonia (Greece)Edit

Portal:Macedonia (Greece) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Micro-portal (one article, one picture) on the political subdivision of Greece; fails the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-matter requirement on that account. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comments:
      • Daily average of 9 pageviews. Daily average of 1048 pageviews for lead article.
      • This is as much a broad area as states of India and the United States.
      • However, the coverage is not broad with one article and one picture. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - No value added to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. WP:POG scope failure
  2. WP:REDUNDANTFORK of head article
SITH (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Education in PakistanEdit

Portal:Education in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal, abandoned since 2013 with phantom subpages.

Created[239] in August 2011‎ by Drspaz (talk · contribs), who has bee blocked since 2015 a sockpuppet. No maintainer since then, but is escaped the rash of converting portals to navbox-clone.

The subpages appear to have been mostly created in 2013 by @Northamerica1000 (NA1K). Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Education in Pakistan shows:

... and that's it. So despite the long list of sub-pages, there is actually one selected article, and two only selected pictures. The pictures are currently unused, because @The Transhumanist (TTH) modified[240] the portal to use the images from the head article Education in Pakistan. That was a common trick of TTH's, but is pointless redundancy because the Wikimedia software offers automatic imagery galleries. For ordinary readers who are not logged in, clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 90 consecutive updates.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only a median of 4 pageviews per day.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Education in Pakistan.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has been done many other portals such as Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Another sock portal. When the portal maintainer does show up, check the feathers. If there seems to be a match, request CheckUser to perform avian DNA comparison. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: per WP:PORTAL, active maintenance is required. This doesn't have it. It could be broad enough, despite X in Y portals often being esoteric, but at present isn't. SITH (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Balochistan, PakistanEdit

Portal:Balochistan, Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static portal o the province of Balochistan in Pakistan. Abandoned since creation in 2011.

Created[241] in August 2011‎ by Drspaz (talk · contribs), who has bee blocked since 2015 a sockpuppet. No maintainer since then.

It escaped the wave of conversion to navbox-forked automated redundnancy, but the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Balochistan, Pakistan shows that it has been abandoned:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 90 consecutive updates.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Balochistan, Pakistan and its navboxes {{Balochistan, Pakistan topics}} and {{Districts of Balochistan (Pakistan)}}.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 7 pageviews per day

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the magical thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has been done in v different ways with e.g. Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Political scienceEdit

Portal:Political science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal abandoned since 2008. No selection or rotation of content.

Cretaed[246] in May 2008‎ by Kanogul (talk · contribs), whose last portal-space contribs were later that month[247]. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so no criticism of Kanogul, but the portal has had no maintainer since Kanogul exercised their right to moved onto other interests.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Political_science shows that this portals has never been developed beyond the start made by its creator:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 130 consecutive updates.

In theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers".

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article political science.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the hope that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal which actually adds value for readers, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages. There are several possible models, such as the v different Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As specified by BHG. A valid broad area for a portal. Reserving the right to change this !vote to Weak Delete or Neutral if the original maintainer or a new maintainer makes a statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: since its abandonment, no effort has been made to make it pass WP:POG and WP:PORTALs require active maintenance to fulfil their purpose. Echo BHG's WP:NOTCOMPULSORY comment, but there are portals which are updated via bot or script, so if an active maintainer can't be found, maybe that could be a recreation route as this topic clearly could pass POG. SITH (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As I recall, I created this portal based on a list of "needed portals" at the time. Wikipedia has changed significantly since that time (and so have I). It was never my intention to maintain the portal, only to create it. If it is ambiguous, redundant, and violates WP guidelines (which appears to be the case), I see no reason why it should be kept. I have no strong opinions either way. But I definitely do not have time or resources to maintain a WP portal on my own. Kanogul (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Portal:Politics which I just updated on behalf of Wikiproject Politics. It's a plausible search term, I feel. Separately, I will note that I am here because of this notice on Talk:Political science.MJLTalk 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Quotative likeEdit

Draft:Quotative like (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The topic of this draft is already covered at Like. It would be best to copy the contents to the talk page for integration into the primary article. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Neutral - The reason given by the nominator isn't a reason for deletion, but it is true that this usage should be within the main article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Like#As a colloquial quotative, do not delete. It is reasonable drafting of obviously suitable material, but it is accidental content forking. The topic is covered in an article. Edit that article directly, or us its talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I still very much see the potential of a separate article on this subject, though I am not the one to write it. It would be a shame to see all of these citations go to waste, but other than that, the draft is unlikely to be developed into an article at this point. No particular opinions on this deletion nomination from me. A slight sadness to see it go unused, I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Practically speaking, this will likely end up either getting G13'd or accepted. My gut feeling is that there isn't enough content worthy of making a fork, so a merge would be the best way to go, but I could be wrong. SITH (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sony PlayStationEdit

Portal:Sony PlayStation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Xbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete These two portals covering product families from single companies do not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter guidelines of the WP:POG guideline. Both can be more than adequately covered by Portal:Video games. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Too narrow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Different histories, but same problem. Neither is a broad area. Both were maintained briefly in the 2000s and no longer are maintained. Enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
  1. WP:POG scope failure
  2. WP:PORTAL active maintenance failure
SITH (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge - I'm beginning to think with more and more of these kinds of discussions WP:POG is being used as a reason to delete when it shouldn't. If you look at them just as portals for the consoles then yes they would be limited in scope but they cover more than just the hardware. Just because these portals are on a single product family doesn't mean they are not broad. I would recommend merging both of these into Portal:Sony and Portal:Microsoft respectively at the very least. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:14098gr'140Edit

Draft:14098gr'140 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a place to keep track of non-notable people like this; most likely a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:East Midlands EnglandEdit

Portal:East Midlands England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static portal abandoned since 2007, aprt from minor updates in 2013.

Created[251] February 2007‎ by Ftmichael (talk · contribs).

It escaped the 2018–19 fad for conversion into automated and redundant fork of a navbox, but is way out-of-date. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:East_Midlands_England shows:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article East Midlands.

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

This might in theory be a broad enough topic to meet the WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". But in practice it has not attracted maintainers, and if anyone does want to build a genuinely useful portal they would do better to start afresh than try to resurrect this relic.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm unsure whether English regions are a good basis for a portal, as (other than Greater London, which would be redundant to Portal:London)) they're not really cohesive cultural reasons, more smaller areas grouped for statistical and limited government administrative purposes. It's not really surprising to me therefore that this failed to get off the ground. In this case I also agree that if someone does want to maintain a portal on this topic that this isn't going to be much help as a starting point. As a final, very minor, point I also think it's named wrongly - if Portal:East Midlands is regarded as requiring disambiguation (the main article is at East Midlands) it should be Portal:East Midlands, England or (my preference) Portal:East Midlands of England to match real world usage. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, ONE article, ONE picture, created 2007-02-12 18:03:43 by User:Ftmichael. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:East Midlands England. Pldx1 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I note that Thryduulf recommends deletion, and that is an additional reason beyond those given by BHG. Another abandoned portal, maybe a broad area, maybe not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: currently fails POG scope and active maintenance requirement. SITH (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:GoaEdit

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

Abandoned portal on the Indian state of Goa.

Created in August 2006, but largely abandoned after the first few years.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Goa shows:

WP:POG#How_often_to_update? says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this -portal has missed over 100 consecutive updates.

In theory, this state with a population of 1.5 million could be considered a broad topic. But in practice, it has not met 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". In practice this has not attracted maintainers for over a decade, and the current stale version clearly fails the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the B-class head article Goa with its navbox {{Goa topics}}.

It is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft, and time to abandon the wishful thinking that this abandoned relic will some day magically attract magical editors who will want to resurrect it. If any editor does want to build a real portal, they will be far better off without this relic and its ancient content-forked subpages; instead they should build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as has recently been done with Portal:Geophysics.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 21 subpages, created 2006-08-26 12:10:08 by User:Fredericknoronha. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Portal:Goa. Pldx1 (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete:
      • I learned something from this MFD, and that is the current status of Goa. I had known that it had been a Portuguese colony and had then be invaded by India. So it is now a state of India.
      • Either a state of India or a former quasi-country is a broad area.
      • Again, no recent maintenance.
      • Add this to a list of deleted portals that have been deleted without prejudice and can therefore be re-created without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Retain: We have been struggling to build locally-generated content related to Goa, both in English, the small Konkani language [256] and also other languages. In 2018, an informal WhatsApp group was launched for this purpose, to network and build content. It would be noticed that attempts have been made to build this portal (see entries on the discuss page) by local volunteers, especially The Discoverer and Ser Tanmay. Please have some patience before embarking on any hasty decision. fredericknoronha (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:POG scope not met, WP:PORTALs activity and maintenance requirement not met. I think 100 months is more than enough patience. SITH (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Retain: As mentioned by Fredericknoronha, we have been working towards building content about Goa and Goans for the past year or so, under WP:GOA. We are currently in the process of recruiting volunteers to regularly update the portal, as per WP:POG. We are also working on building content in multiple regional languages. SerTanmay (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @SerTanmay and @fredericknoronha, whatever good work your WhatsApp group has spurred since 2018, it isn't reflected in the portal's contents. (That's probably wise, because portals get abysmally low page views. In this case, daily pageviews in Jan–Feb 2019 were 13 per day for the portal, versus 3,831 for the portal. Best to concentrate your efforts on pages which readers actually read).
As for the discussion at Portal talk:Goa#Portal_image, it's all about one image. As set out in the nomination, the content remains skimpy and outdated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Taking a look at the MFD of the Geophysics portal, I am beginning to better understand what the problems are here. Given a little bit of time, we can revamp the portal using the new automated tools as suggested. SerTanmay (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That's why I recommend deleting this per WP:TNT. If someone does decide to work on this, they would do much better to build a modern portal without content-forked sub-pages, as recommended in the nomination. There's no benefit in keeping the relic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Another situation where we have an under-supported portal that is basically a replication of the main article+navbox, and the main article is tagged for issues. Why would any reader want to get into the portal when the main article has issues? We should focus our scarce editing resources on main article+navbox in all cases; only then can we earn the right in the reader's eyes, to expand with a portal (and, again, only where an editor(s) are going to actively maintain it, to avoid it depreciating the integrity of the main article in the reader's eyes). Britishfinance (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:KarnatakaEdit

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

13-year-old abandoned portal with an over-ambitious structure.

Created[257] in September 2006‎ by Sarvagnya (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2009.

It was overlooked in the rush to turn old portals into automated navbox clones which were just a bloated and redundant fork of the navbox.

It is a static page, because as Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Karnataka shows, it was designed to be updated monthly, but the updates happened two or three times in 2006, and then stopped.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is a massively less useful page than the featured-class head article Karnataka and its 3 navboxes {{Karnataka topics}}, {{Hindu temples in Karnataka}} and {{Archaeological sites and Monuments in Karnataka}}.

In theory, this Indian state of over 60 million people is inherently a broad topic. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and in practice this has not had builders, let alone maintainers. If any editor wants to build a portal on this topic which actually adds value for readers, they would do much better to start afresh and build a new, low-maintenance portal. Examples of how this can be done can be seen at at the very different Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics. And meanwhile, the current page is just a waste of readers' time.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 31 subpages, created 2006-09-07 05:32:30 by User:Sarvagnya. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. "Selected article" is not plural for a reason. Portal:Karnataka. Pldx1 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As BHG and Pldx1 say. Another abandoned portal on an Indian state. Add this one to the list. No need to wait for the phase of the moon. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:POG scope and WP:PORTALs active maintenance requirement. SITH (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:NigeriaEdit

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

Abandoned portal on the African nation of Nigeria.

Created[258] in November 2006‎ by Toussaint (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2011.

Converted[259] in January 2019‎ by @The Transhumanist to an automated format which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Nigeria topics}}. That made it simply a bloated and redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

Reverted[260] by BHG on 12 May 2019‎ to the last non-automated version.

Despite being twelve years old, this is a bare start. It's a static page, because as Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Nigeria shows, there is only one of each type of sub-page:

That's all.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is a massively less useful page than the head article Nigeria and its navbox {{Nigeria topics}}.

In theory, a country is inherently a broad topic. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and in practice this has not had builders, let alone maintainers. If any editor wants to build a portal on this topic which actually adds value for readers, they would do much better to start afresh and build a new, low-maintenance portal. Examples of how this can be done can be seen at at the very different Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics. And meanwhile, the current page is just a waste of readers' s time.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

PS Since @UnitedStatesian has offered to rebuild this portal, I would be happy to support draftifying the portal as an alternative to deletion. I still think that it would be better to WP:TNT it and start afresh, then draftifying it pending a rebuild would be the next best thing.
As noted below, moving a portal to draft space doesn't work for technical reasons, so the best way to draftify it is to move it without redirects to an alternative title in portal space. In discussion at WT:WPPORT, the preferred way to do this is to prefix it with "Ω draft" or "Ω incubator", so that in this it would be a move of Portal:Nigeria to Portal:Ω draft — Nigeria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I fixed the news with three edits, and will add additional content shortly. Suggest that for portals where the topic is obviously sufficiently broad (this one has 15,000 articles in scope) and there is a dedicated WikiProject, that some talkpage discussion first be opened at the WikiProject (which is probably not aware that portals need to be frequently updated), and then only brought to MfD based on the WikiProject's lack of response. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @UnitedStatesian, there are literally hundreds of similarly long-abandoned portals. Turning this one into something which genuinely adds value is a lot of work, and simply adding a few extra subpages does not make a page which actually adds value for readers.
A WikiProject notification is is unlikely to produce results, because a) portals are complex and need a lot of work, b) not many editors want to work on pages which attract so few readers.
So I still firmly believe that TNT is a much better solution than trying to breathe life into an abandoned corpse.
But if anyone still clings to the hope of resurrection in this case, then I'd be happy to support draftification. That way the pages remain for the use f anyone who wants to work on them, but readers's time is not wasted until something worthwhile is produced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
As has been discussed many times before, draftification is not a feasible option for portals due to technical issues. This is independent of WP:DUD, an essay which I disagree with. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pythoncoder: To test that claim that {tq|draftification is not a feasible option for portals due to technical issues}}, I created a multi-subpage portal in portalspace and moved it first to a difft title in portalspaceband then to my userspace. There was one minor prob with the archives, but it was easily identifiable, and was fixed before the moves. Try it for yourself, at User:BrownHairedGirl/Incubator — Ballyporeen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Abandoned draft of a portal, 12 subpages, created 2006-11-25 02:49:11 by User:Toussaint. Never went alive. Nothing to keep. Nigeria is a country whose history started many centuries before the Pilgrim Mothers landed in America. Therefore any user having any knowledge on the topic and wanting seriously to do build a Portal:Nigeria would be able to do so, better starting from scratch. With the following caveat: according to [wmflabs] page views for the portal are 50 per day, to be compared with the 8500+ views per day for the article. Pldx1 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Based on the comment of User:UnitedStatesian, I am willing to wait for a portal maintainer for maybe three or four days while this MFD is open. The author of this portal last edited eight years ago, but maybe a maintainer will come in three or four days. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added myself as a portal maintainer on this one. Note that the current events now update automatically, with the last update 3 days ago. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: what does it take to be a portal maintainer? If the issue is about lack of dedicated volunteers towards the portal, I'm willing to dedicate time to it and also publicize the need for consistent followup among interested members of WikiProject Nigeria. HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep—interest has been shown in updating and maintaining this portal, and its scope passes WP:POG. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Similar wording has been i place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.
It is very disappointing that some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of license to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just becuase the scope is broad enough. POG is very clear that scope is a necessary condition, but an insufficient one: the portal must also be maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
But @BrownHairedGirl: this portal in no longer abandoned, and so I request in the interest of saving time that you now withdraw this one MfD nomination, as I did with Portal:Geophysics when a maintaining editor stepped forward; I don't see how this is a different case than that one (and in fact 50 pageviews a day is enormous for the portalspace). UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian, I withdrew another one when significant improvements had been made. I would do the same here if that applied, but it doesn't. That's why I think that draftification is the appropriate move here. As I noted above, it is technically feasible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: let me know when you have changed the nomination; it still says delete, not draftify. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian, I still think that TNT is the best option, to get rid of the ancient subpages and all the structure that goes with them. But as above, draftify is the next best. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify: nominator has expressed that this is an acceptable middle ground and while I agree with Pldx1's comment that a serious maintainer would likely be better off starting from scratch, if one can be found, great, if not, then bring the draft back to MFD in six months. SITH (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is one of the more popular portals. It has 53 page views daily. The head article, by contrast, has 8707 page views daily. The utilization of a portal doesn't have very much to do with the utilization of the head article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - How many complaints have there been that the poor condition of Portal:Nigeria was interfering with the ability of readers to learn about Nigeria? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – In addition to the expansions performed by UnitedStatesian, I have also expanded the portal and its subpages a bit. North America1000 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Both the News and Exemplary content sections now update automatically, requiring no maintenance. All of the article and bio subpages have been updated to use the lead transclusion template, so any changes to the source articles are reflected in the portal without further editing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep based on the agreement by User:UnitedStatesian to maintain the portal, and as an experiment in rescuing and maintaining a previously abandoned heritage portal, with the understanding that another nomination can be made in 90 days if the portal is not being adequately maintained. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MongoliaEdit

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

12-year-old abandoned portal which never got beyond a very basic start.

Created[263] in November 2007‎ by Dagvadorj (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2014.

Converted[264] in January 2019‎ by @The Transhumanist to an automated format which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox {{Mongolia topics}}. That made it simply a bloated and redundant fork of the navbox. (For a full explanation of why this type of portal is redundant, see the two mass deletions of similar portals: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals).

Reverted[265] by BHG on 12 May 2019‎ to the last non-automated version.

Despite being twelve years old, this is a bare start. It's a static page, because as Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Mongolia shows, there is only one of each type of sub-page:

That's all.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is a massively less useful page than the head article Mongolia and its navbox {{Mongolia topics}}.

In theory, a country is inherently a broad topic. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and in practice this has not had builders, let alone maintainers. If any editor wants to build a portal on this topic which actually adds value for readers, they would do much better to start afresh and build a new, low-maintenance portal. Examples of how this can be done can be seen at at the very different Portal:Harz Mountains and Portal:Geophysics. And meanwhile, the current page is just a waste of readers' s time.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Again, a valid broad area for a portal, but the original editor has not edited in five years and has not maintained the portal longer, as shown above. The alternatives are an abandoned portal, a robotic portal, or a deletion without prejudice. Do we need a list of portals that have been deleted without prejudice that are waiting for portal maintainers? Maybe. A list of deleted portals is harmless. Then Vladimir and Estragon can argue, in French, about a few of the items on the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion - articles on Mongolia as they are already get few contributors. Sure the portal has not attracted much traffic, but its about the country. There needs to be some kind of go to for Mongolia related topics to generate interest or to have a noticeboard of sorts to add things to do. I know that many portals have been placed for deletion, but there has to be something, at least one portal where editors can go to and where they can use for editing purposes to enhance Mongolia related articles.Resnjari (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Resnjari: Per WP:PORTAL, the purpose of a portal is that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". They are not noticeboards.
If you want a meeting place or noticeboard, use a WikiProject. WP:WikiProject Central Asia is the most relevant to Mongolia, and it's not busy.
OTOH, if you want to generate interest, then the portal is the last place to do that, because as @Robert McClenon noted below, portals are almost unused. In Jan–Feb 2019, the average daily pageviews was 18 for the portal, versus 5,394 for the head article Mongolia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Resnjari - Probably an accurate diagnosis. Definitely a wrong cure (like bloodletting, which was the wrong cure for many conditions 300 years ago). The probably right diagnosis is not enough articles and not enough traffic on Mongolia. A portal is the wrong cure, and isn't likely to cure anything. A portal is only in order if there is already a great slide show behind it. A portal as a cure for systemic bias sounds like it might cause iatrogenic disease. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am looking at it from the perspective of trying to attract interest in an area that gets minimal attention. This portal will get deleted because editors state that it has been little edited etc. While other portals on topics that have to do with Europe or the Americas will remain. ok, at this point in time they get traffic, in future if traffic dips on them will the same standards be applied and then deleted. I highly doubt it. Instead notability reasons will be given and so on. The rush to delete anything and everything may end up making Wikipedia a more poorer place in the long term. That's my two cents on the issue.Resnjari (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari, try loking at instead from the perspective of readers, who have a right not to have their time wasted on an abandoned page which completely fails in its purpose to enhance.
This portal meets the scope criterion of WP:POG, but it abysmally fails the core point of POG, its lead, which currently reads bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.
Similar wording has been i place for over 12 years. The lead of the September 2006‎ version says Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance.
It is very disappointing that some editors continue to misrepresent POG as some sort of licence to litter Wikipedia with abandoned portals, just because the scope is broad enough. POG is very clear that scope is a necessary condition, but an insufficient one: the portal must also be maintained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
What's disappointing is that some editors seem not to take into account that many portals were created a long time ago with good faith intentions of advancing the encyclopedia project, not to limit it. Also no one can predict how long they themselves will be an active Wikipedian due to life constraints. Going by thing its most likely that this portal will be deleted. But i stand by my comments. If traffic ever droped on some of the European and American based portals in future, i will say it again, i highly doubt they will be deleted. Instead a whole host of reasons like "notability" etc will be given to keep them. Oh well, i guess this is the direction Wikipedia is moving in now. So be it.Resnjari (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Resnjari, please re-read the nomination. I didn't nominate for deletions this because of low pageviews. I nominated it because it is abandoned and of no use to readers. And over the last few weeks, I have MFDed lots of European and American portals for exactly the same reason.
I'm sure that this portal was created in good faith. But that doesn't alter the fact that it is abandoned and doesn't serve its purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I made my peace with this. Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen.Resnjari (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: opposing draftification in contrast to my !vote at Portal:Nigeria because of the lack of extant scope. If a maintainer wants to start maintaining it, there is nothing of value to maintain, so the majority of the building work would need to be done as well. Likelihood is that such a maintainer won't appear, so the activity requirement per WP:PORTAL won't be met, so delete without prejudice. SITH (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The head article has an average of 5,394 daily page views. The portal has an average of 18 daily page views, which is better than most portals, but still hardly illustrates that the portal adds value. Rather, views find the article useful in itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Abandoned and adds nothing over the main article+navbox. In situations like this where the main article has been tagged for years with issues and the portal is abandoned and is only a main article+navbox replication, it should be a delete; we need to focus any spare editing resources on this topic on rescuing the main article – why would any reader want to investigate this portal when the main article is tagged as out of date? Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


May 12, 2019Edit

















Old businessEdit

May 7, 2019Edit

Portal:Modern historyEdit

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

This is another quick creation by @The Transhumanist. It's not as bad as most of his creations, but I think that it's too poor to keep as a public-facing page unless radically improved.

This isn't built off a navbox. It uses an embedded list which shows signs of actual curation, unlike e.g. Shipwrecks, Habitats, and Electricity.

However, the skimpy list is very poor:

The problems include:

  • Deeply biased towards the developed nations of the northern hemisphere.
  • A ridiculously narrow month-by-month events list for the last two decades, which is way too narrow for the scope of this topic
  • Nothing about the major political developments of the modern era: e.g. colonialism, decolonisation, absolute monarchies, nationalism, democracy, dictatorship, liberalism, communism, environmentalism, feminism, human rights
  • Nothing about major economic issues of the modern era: e.g. industrialisation, capitalism, globalisation, finance, the joint stock com[pany, double-entry accounting, fossil fuels
  • Nothing about the communications and transport revolutions: e.g. the printing press (which arguably began the modern era), rail transport, steam ships, postal systems, telephony, the internet, air travel, radio, television

I could make similar rough lists for the arts and culture education, religion, science, medicine, warfare, and a swathe of other topics.

Sure, a great portal could be constructed on modern history. But it needs to be built by editor(s) with a good grasp of the broad sweep of the last 500 years of global history, who can combine broad thematic topics with an understanding of eras which goes beyond listing centuries.

As it stands, this portal simply isn't ready for readers, and it hasn't improved at all in the 6 months since it was created. It could be deleted per WP:TNT ... or as a single-page portal it could be moved to the "Draft" namespace. But please, don't leave it as a live portal in this shape. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - Automated portal, 0 subpages, created 2018-11-27 20:47:01 by User:TTH, useless navigation tool, redundant to the existing articles and navboxes, and of lower quality. To be kept as an illustration of how useless are automated portal, even when dealing with extra-broad topics. With two views per day, this portal cannot be terribly harmful. Better let the portal fans argue that we have a good candidate for a portal, might need some work due to the method of creation, while nobody has any intent to put their precious feet in the mud of the trenches. Portal:Modern history. Pldx1 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's not much of a deletion rationale presented. The topic is very broad and widely interesting. The portal meets the guidelines; in portal terms, it's graduated to start. It's easy to expand. The nominator has provided some excellent areas that it could be expanded to cover, and there are many more (Rationalism, Dissent, genetic engineering/cloning, antibiotics/vaccination, species extinction &c&c). I'd probably pare down the existing list to essentials, removing eg Cold War II, and then start subboxes, sliced by region, by era or in the broad subject areas that BHG suggests above. I'd also suggest adding at least one bio section (probably more than one), as there must be many hundreds of FAs on major figures in modern history, and many other key figures are GAs. I'd get rid of the by month links at the bottom, though some means of linking in to all this blow-by-blow content would be helpful. Is the creator @The Transhumanist: interested in further work on this? If not, BHG & I could probably improve it quite a bit in an afternoon, though I fear my historian credentials are entirely lacking. How about it, BrownHairedGirl? You were the one who suggested a portal incubator. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Umm, the deletion rationale is that as it stands, it's no use to readers. As noted in the nom, I'd be fine with moving it to an incubator if someone wants to work on it.
And sorry, but I am not getting into portal-building. Given the low viewing rates and the low utility I see in them, I don't want to spend my time that way. My interest in this remains to clear out the worst of the junk from portalspace, so that readers don't waste their time on scores of pages which should never have gone live in the first place ... and also to help try to build a broad community consensus on what portals are for, how they should do it, and which topics they should do it for. I hope that will all make portals a less conflictual area ... and then I will move onto other things which I consider more productive. There was consensus a year ago at WP:ENDPORTALS not to kill all portals, which I of course accept ... but I don't want to put my energies into making them, any more than I want to work on documenting everything Pokemon or craft fanzine-level of detail on every individual blade of grass in Tolkein's works.
If you want to expand this portal, then good luck. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, notating as follows:
      • The "Nothing"s listed by BHG are a very strong indication that the portal was developed with a trivia view of history. History does have a lot of trivia, but it also has themes.
      • The listing of events by dates is interesting and should be kept or set up somehow, maybe in a superlist of some sort, but is not a reason for a portal.
      • The argument by User:Pldx1 could be a deletion argument. They are saying to put this portal in the portal museum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Without prejudice to a real portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - the issues raised in the nomination can all be dealt with through editing and/or appropriate tagging. In such cases the deletion policy is very clear what should be done. WaggersTALK 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Nonsense, @Waggers. Portals have no content; they simply direct readers to content elsewhere, or display content which is located elsewhere. If you disagree, then please show me the content in this portal.
Even if DP applied to portals, WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
Like most of the other pseudo-portals which you advocated keeping today, this a severe case. It is yet another piece of drive-by spam created by a notorious spammer (@The Transhumanist) who created about 4,000 spammy pseudo-portals and remains topic-banned from any such activity.
Yet you continue to point to WP:DEL-CONTENT as if it placed a total ban on deleting junk pages, which it explicitly doesn't. Please read policies before cherrypicking them.
There is a very clear community consensus to delete such spam without prejudice to re-creating a curated portal on the same topic.
I repeat what I have said elsewhere: if you are trying to discredit the Portal Project by representing it as the defenders of spam and decade-old rotten junk pages, then you have been doing a great job today. Otherwise, not so good. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Since you're copying and pasting exactly the same text across multiple discussion pages, I'll simply refer you to my reply to this particular one made elsewhere. Suffice to say, there's no "if" - deletion policy is deletion policy and applies to the whole project, as any administrator worth their salt knows full well - and if there was no content to a portal then there would be no difference between a portal worth having and one that isn't. Clearly that isn't the case. WaggersTALK 17:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, @Waggers, policy is policy. So as an administrator yourself you should not have to be reminded yet again that WP:DEL-CONTENT says very clearly "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases".
So are you really, seriously, trying to claim that deletion policy forbids the deletion of driveby spam by a creator of over 4,000 such spammed pages? Really?
If you are serious, go to DRV, and ask for the two mass nominations to be overturned. Because all the wikilawyering cherrypicked-picked "policy" arguments you make here apply there too.
You write if there was no content to a portal then there would be no difference between a portal worth having and one that isn't. Oh dear. This is not complicated: the portal contains instruction to link to or transclude content located elsewhere. It's just like a TV set: the set delivers the content to you, but it is not content.
So the difference between a good and bad portal is what instructions are given, but the content remains elsewhere. That's why, as you are well aware, the precondition for creating a portal is that enough content exists elsewhere.
And I ask again. What on earth are you actually trying to achieve by keeping this spam? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course portals have content. WP:POG is a content guideline, it says so at the top. We don't have content guidelines for things that don't have content.
Describing good faith page creation using a few tools as "spam" is just an example of WP:YELLVAND. It's a totally inaccurate mischaracterisation.
None of what you've said has convinced me there's a policy based reason for deleting this portal; in fact, quite the opposite. WaggersTALK 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
More nonsense, Waggers.
People can put whatever tag they like at the top a guidance page, but it doesn't alter the fact that portals are not content. We could put a label on a photo of a cow saying that it's actually a technical drawing of an electrical circuit, but it will remain a cow.
As to spam, there is clear community consensus to a ) topic-ban TTH as a portalspammer; b) mass delete his spam. Waggers continues their campaign of disruption against the consensus.
So I'll ask again. @Waggers, What on earth are you actually trying to achieve by keeping this drive-by spam? In what way does this benefit our readers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The onus is on you to provide a policy based reason for deletion, not on me to provide a reason for this portal to be kept - although I've already done that, and you have yet to do the former. WaggersTALK 13:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
More wiklawyering. We a here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in sc