Open main menu

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion)


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 0 11 28 96 135
TfD 0 0 16 21 37
MfD 0 0 8 3 11
AfD 0 0 0 1 1

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 25, 2019Edit

May 24, 2019Edit

User:Jackmarshall052104/SandboxEdit

User:Jackmarshall052104/Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy elections. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jackmarshall052104/Sandbox. Whpq (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nonsense by this editor has already been deleted once at this forum. Looking over the editor's history, the next stop is probably Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:AdeleEdit

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

I'd like to make clear off the bat that this is the second nomination for deletion that this portal has received this year. However, I nominate this portal because certain facts have since come to light that were never addressed in the previous nomination.

This is portal was created in 2016 by MaranoFan until it was upgraded by TTH on 8 September 2018‎ to basically its current semi-automated state. Before that, Dreamy Jazz did do some substantial restructuring of the portal [2]. That version looks pretty nice tbh, but it has some significant quirks that I won't get into.

The portal uses (among other things):

It's usage of a {{Adele}} to select its article content makes this portal a WP:REDUNDANTFORK terrible off-brand clone of a single navbox. It almost doesn't need saying at this point, but consensus is clearly against portals based off a single navbox (See MFD:Mass-created Navbox portals 1 and MFD:Mass-created Navbox portals 2).

Further, to quote BrownHairedGirl in her nomination of Portal:Lenovo since withdrawn because my trainwreck is still somehow chugging.:

Note also that the two main features of this type of portal are page preview and an image gallery. However, two newish features of Wikipedia render these features 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

That's for desktop readers. Similar functionality has been part of the Android app for Wikipedia since 2015.

Unique to this type of portal is that the community seems to disfavor portals centered on a single person, musician, or band. See:

All of which closed as some form of delete or resulted in a deletion. I won't go into depth on the different circumstances of each nomination because I find that to be a little too tedious. I will still mention that there are still pending discussions within this area, so consensus is by no means set in stone here. Suffice to say, portals based off single musicians have historically been disfavored with ones based off a single navbox even moreso.

Since this has generally come up with my recent nominations, I will elaborate on the subpages of this portal. Since the changes made by DreamyJazz were implemented, the majority of the subpages are no longer needed (/Topics, /Categories, etc.). That being said, 12 subpages are uniquely unnecessary since they are just redirects to the selected content. When it comes to said selections; there is one selected album (19), one selected article(Adele Live), and one selected song ("Hello"). That brings the total to: 3 selected pages. There isn't much else worth mentioning here because the portal is only about 3 years old.

With all that being said, keeping in mind the results of previous nominations, I suggest that this portal and its subpages be deleted without prejudice to recreating a manually curated portal in accordance with whatever future guidelines are implemented by community consensus.MJLTalk 20:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have notified all editors who participated in the previous discussion using this talk page notice. I did this to help the discussion gets as much participation from previous editors as possible to ensure a proper consensus is reached. –MJLTalk 21:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry to beat the same drum yet again but please stop using WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which is explicitly specific to articles, as a rationale for deleting portals. Every portal repeats article content; that's their purpose. Certes (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentWP:REDUNDANTFORK and the entire Wikipedia:Content forking page was written specifically in regards to articles only, and states nothing about Portal namespace content. Fact is, there is nothing about portals on the page at all; even the word "portal" is not present. Conversely, the word "article" is used 100 times throughout the page (as of this post, link). Ultimately, the use of Redundant fork toward Portal namespace content is a slippery slope and overextension of the Content forking guideline page, as well as the intent of the page when it was written; it's about articles. North America1000 00:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Northamerica1000 and Certes: You're points are well taken. To avoid getting into the arguement for the 100th time, I've just replaced the words WP:REDUNDANTFORK with terrible off-brand clone. I don't agree we should apply that guideline so narrowly because I believe in a form of loose constructionism for interpreting these things, but that really is neither here nor there. The sentiment is there that these off-brand clones aren't needed no matter what people want to call them. –MJLTalk 02:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - See analysis of Music Portals (esp. by Moxy) showing that article has 7,403 daily page views but portal has 14 daily page views. The portal is not attracting large numbers of readers, or a portal maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sonic the HedgehogEdit

Portal:Sonic the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic: Sonic the Hedgehog is just a single-video game franchise. The portal has been mostly abandoned since 2007, and is redundant to the head article with its Template:Sonic the Hedgehog.

Created[3] in November 2006‎ by DarknessLord (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2008. Unmaintained since then.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Sonic the Hedgehog shows a modest set of sub-pages, with 6 selected characters and 7 selected articles. However, they were all created in 2007, and and represent only a tiny subset of the articles listed in Template:Sonic the Hedgehog.

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 Sonic the Hedgehog and its navbox. WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", but this has bot been maintained.

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

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

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

Maybe someday someone will build and maintain a portal which actually adds value for readers. But if so, they will do better to start afresh, rather than building on these 12-year-old content forks.

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) 20:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Republika SrpskaEdit

Portal:Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Abandoned micro-portal on what is one half of Bosnia and Herzegovina. One article, 11 pictures, and two monthly biographies: if you don't happen to be on one of those two months (as is the case now), you get a big ol' redlink. Can be more than adequately covered in Portal:Bosnia and Herzegovina. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Portal:TransgenderEdit

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

Despite some updates the portal seems abandoned for a decade. This subject is already properly addressed in the Portals Portal:LGBT, Portal:Gender studies and Portal:Human sexuality, its a desnecessary sub portal. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Section Contents Last add of content
Introduction The same of the article Transgender.
Selected article 13 articles (9 already listed in the article Transgender) 2009‎
Random quote 9 quotes 2014
Selected picture 2 pictures + transclude files of Transgender, Transfeminism and Transgender Day of Remembrance 2019
Did you know 3 DYK 2009
Selected biography 4 articles (one already listed in the article Transgender) 2009‎
Topic From Portal:Transgender/Topics 2018
Categories categorytree of Category:Transgender
  • Comment I would like to point out that the subject is not addressed in Portal:Human sexuality. Sexuality =/= Gender. I'll review this nomination in a bit, though. –MJLTalk 15:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The portal has 58 daily pageviews, which is high compared to poartals, but the article has 5527 daily pageviews. The originator has been inactive since 2013. Unmaintained portals are a form of litter by the side of the information superhighway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: is this portal any better or worse than the average portal? Last year there was an RfC on whether the portal system should end, with the nominator arguing that portals in general were unpopular with both editors and readers. The result was a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    @WanderingWanda: I'm pretty sure if there was an absolute average portal, this one would it. It's why I am rather neutral. However, I can confidently assure you that Portal:LGBT is much better than the average portal. If there was one I'd have to recommend people put their focus on out of the two, it would be the latter. –MJLTalk 03:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:OsakaEdit

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

Abandoned micro-portal on the city of Osaka, Japan. No list of topics, no rotation of topics. Just a static display of 2 items.

Created[4] in May 2006‎ by KGF~enwiki (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2010.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Osaka shows just a skinny set of sub-pages: Selected article/1, /Selected biography/1, /Selected picture/1, all unchanged since 2010. Portal:Osaka/DYK/1 has displayed the same 3 items since 2010. They do appear to be genuine DYKs items, but per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... and this 9-year-old list loses the newness, so its only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.

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.

WP:POG requires that portals be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has not been maintained, and it doesn't attract readers: in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day, less that even the abysmal median for all portals of 13 views per day, and only about 0.5% of the 2,008 daily pageviews for the head article Osaka.

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 Osaka.

Maybe a miracle will happen, and some team of editors will appear to build and maintain an Osaka portal which actually adds value for readers. 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 since most city portals outside the USA are neglected, the chances of any replacement being maintained are slim ... so I won't oppose outright deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete:
  1. Portals require active maintenance to fulfil their purpose.
  2. While this topic could be broad enough, its selection is not.
SITH (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per analysis by BHG. As stated, city portals get less than 1% of the pageviews of the head article. They are also often abandoned, as this one has been. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Gaelic gamesEdit

Portal:Gaelic games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Created[5] in May 2013 by an IP, abandoned since June 2013.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Gaelic games is not too sparse: 7 biogs, 4 matches, 2 teams and one venue. But only a few of the pages have been edited since June 2013, and those have all been trivial edits such as disambiguation. The rest is just outdated:

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". But it has had no maintainers since the IP moved on in June 2013, and it gets few viewers. In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 6 pageviews per day, which is less half than the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, and ony 6%% of the 103 daily views of the head article..

The content of the sub-pages is all out-of-date, and the selection of topics is way out-of-date. There is nothing here worth keeping.

Maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 06:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: not actively curated and doesn't cast a wide enough net, although the topic could. SITH (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur with the analysis by BHG. This portal has a strange history in that it was created as a draft by an IP editor and moved to portal space from AFC. A future editor who is interested in Wikipedia coverage of the Gaelic games would do better to work on the head article, which is only at 103 pageviews. Therefore my recommendation is Just Delete It. If the head article is improved and then another editor wants to create a portal, they know where Deletion Review is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:FuturamaEdit

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

Static micro-portal on a narrow topic: the American sci-fi sitcom Futurama. Abandoned since 2007 with no rotation of content, no proper list of topics.

Created[7] in January 2006‎ by WXYZ~enwiki (talk · contribs), but the construction seems to have been shared with Trisreed (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Futurama shows a skinny set of sub-pages:

It seems that series had some sort of revival in 2007, which is probably what prompted the portal's creation.

But it's a narrow topic which has evidently had so little attention that nobody even fixed the vandalism. It was kept at MFD in 2009, but ten years later it's still dead. Best to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tibetan BuddhismEdit

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

Static micro-portal with no selection or rotation of content. Abandoned since creation in 2008, redundant to head articles and navbox.

Created[12] in January 2006‎ by Sylvain1972 (talk · contribs).

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Tibetan Buddhism shows a slim set, with just one of everything:

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.

There is a theoretical case for arguing that this 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". It has consistently failed to attract maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, and only 1.3% of the 779 daily views of 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 Tibetan Buddhism and its sidebar Template:Tibetan Buddhism sidebar and navbox Template:TibetanBuddhism.

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

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

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Tibetan Buddhism and its sidebar Template:Tibetan Buddhism sidebar and navbox Template:TibetanBuddhism.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 02:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: in theory the scope is wide enough, in practice it isn't, which is compounded by the lack of updates which make the portal fail its purpose. SITH (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Donald TrumpEdit

Portal:Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Go Phightins! 03:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ingrained with WP:NPOV failure throughout. A POVFORK of the article Donald Trump. Barely viewed, it serves no purpose, and it just a project liability. The purpose of Portals was to stimulate interest in Wikipedia topic expansion, and article expansion on this topic is absolutely not a problem due to lack of interest. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Question - Is this a coded portal or a single-page portal? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - How is this a POV fork? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • How is this a POV fork?
Well, it obviously is a fork of other Wikipedia pages.
Why POV? Why is it not WP:NPOV compliant? Because it is Wikipedia-editorialisation. The presentation is not external-source based. It gives WP:UNDUE visibility to what Wikipedians think is important. While the forking of the parent article lede, as tranclusions is fine, what follows is not bias-free. What struck me to start with is the listing of Good Articles. Taking a wide-eyed reader perspective, going below the fold, and there is a list Good Article dot points: Crippled America; Impeachment March, Insane Clown President. This listing is out of context, is not reflective of NPOV rules as applied to articles. It instead reflects what Wikipedians think worthy to work on to elevate to Good Article status, it is Wikipedian biased. This is inherently a problem, subject to biases, and unconnected to sourcing as the basis of WP:DUE. If this were intended for editor consumption, it would be ok, but it is not, it is intended for readers.
It is a poor excuse that no real readers read it. What value it has for editors should be moved to WikiProjects, and value there is for readers should be at the parent article. Navigation from the parent article via wikilinking, navigation templates, and the category system, is structurally rigorous, unlike the structure of a portal that reflects editor bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • To clarify after talking to BHG, the POVFORK, NPOV failure argument does not imply any POV pushing or lack of the best good faith by anyone. I see it as deriving entirely from unconscious bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Deferring !vote for more information from other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - this is better than many/most portals - although still having minor faults (e.g. displaying "{{{1}}}" and currently for me displaying two photos of the same thing next to each other). I'm not convinced the portal (currently) has a POV problem (e.g. it currently includes "Trump has made many false or misleading statements during his campaign and presidency."). The quotes may (I haven't checked) all be quotes by, rather than about, Trump but that may be what any readers of the portal would expect. I think a case could be made to delete all single-person portals (especially for recent/living people), but this MFD nom isn't convincing. DexDor (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This portal shares the basic flaw of most old-style (pre-automated) portals, viz. that it forks the MOS:LEAD of Wikipedia articles to a set of subpages of the portal: Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Donald Trump. Those subpages are unreferenced and under-scrutinised.
The subpages system was set up in good faith as way of building portals, and in most cases it seems that in practice the only significant problems relate to maintenance, as the snippets in the subpages tend to ossify.
However, cases like this illustrate how a portal could be used for POV-pushing purposes, both in the selection of topics and in the wording of the subpages. If a miscreant chose to target the head article Donald Trump, that page has 2600 watchers who will soon revert; but while Portal:Donald Trump doesn't show a count of watchers, the page stats show only 56 editors having edited the page, which is probably similar to the number of watchers. Meanwhile the subpage Portal:Donald Trump/Selected article/1 has been edited by only one editor, so any miscreant wanting to use the portal as an attack vector would likely be undetected if they chose that path.
In Jan–Feb 2019, the portal got only 59 pageviews per day, so there can't be many editors monitoring its output.
It is possible to reduce the vulnerability by automating the creation of excerpts, thereby making subpages redundant and I will now do a demo of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Article subpages bypassed, in this edit[17]. However, that leaves the 14 selected quote pages, the 7 selected picture pages, and the 4 "Did you know" pages as vulnerabilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Trump qualifies for a portal as per meeting Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines: enough content available about the subject, a broad topic relative to the significance of the subject, and a decent amount of Recognized content. How is this a POV-fork? The content in the portal is rather neutral, and does not come across as hand-picked to present a particular point-of-view. The portal provides an objective overview of the subject and present POTUS. Concerns about page views can be alleviated by adding links to the portal to various related articles, templates and category pages. More links = more visibility, which directly equates to more page views. North America1000 11:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • The Portal Guidelines have been characterised as having pariah status. They are a set of instructions for what Portal advocates want to do, and they do not reflect or advance Wikipedia objectives. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This portal looks good and has been improved to address the criticism made in the nomination. (Further comment withdrawn after noticing that the nominator's criticisms were directed at an old version of the portal.) Certes (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Certes: my tweak addressed only part of the vulnerability. As noted above, the 14 selected quote pages, the 7 selected picture pages, and the 4 "Did you know" pages remain as unsourced an probably unwatched pages, vulnerable to attack; and the portal itself is so little watched that a stealthy addition of an inappropriate item to the list of selected articles might go undetected for some time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
      • As with most portals and some other derived content, there are a couple of dilemmas. Do you automate DYK/ITN, or leave a manually created version to rot? Do you worry that a page is likely to deteriorate because no one looks at it, or decide not to worry because no one looks at it? There is a case for "might get vandalised later" becoming a valid deletion rationale, but if so then we should consider an RfC on mass-deleting little-watched pages from all namespaces. Or just pre-emptively protect high-risk pages. Certes (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Certes, you seem to be assuming that the choices are either automation or let it rot. Which is interesting, because as you know WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". However, this one attracts neither viewers nor -- as you acknowledge -- enough maintainers to avoid the expectation that it will rot.
So basically you are telling us that the available options if we keep the page are both poor, and that we may need to revise protection policy. So you have persuaded me to choose a better option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: You're undoubtedly far more expert than I on protection policy, but with regard to BLPs, I would be prepared to IAR preemptive protection of little-watched subpages on a polarising BLP if that proved necessary. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The main Trump portal page gets about 50 edits a year and, of course, also changes when transcluded pages are edited. The nominator considers that level of activity as Barely viewed, which I can't really argue with as it's an opinion rather than a fact, so I'm simply commenting on that basis. Certes (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict, preemptive protection of little-watched subpages on a polarising BLP if that proved necessary???? If proven necessary, it's not pre-emptive. And once the subpages are protected, maintenance will become even harder.
@Certes, my comment barely viewed is not an opinion, it is a fact. One view of the portal for every 839 views of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, a valid interpretation of "barely viewed" would be the absolute number of hits, rather than the relative, imo. And maintenance isn't necessarily needed for (1) pages that extract from a dynamic source; (2) images that continue show that they showed; (3) quotations that the subject said and can't retract that fact; (4) main-page DYKs that ran and aren't date sensitive. In this case I doubt getting an admin maintainer would be too tricky. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to do absolute number of views, I went too look for some obscure topic in upstate NY. I thought I'd look at a ridge on the Erie Canal, but didn't find any, so I took the first school I found: D'Youville College in Buffalo, with 51 pageviews/day. The portal barely exceeds that obscure school.
Some maintenance is needed on subpages, as comments become outdated. And a watching eye is need for vandalism.
The head article is so heavily watched that that it subject to disputes and sanctions; meanwhile with the portal, all we have is an observation that a maintainer would need to be actively recruited ... which just reinforces my point about the POG guidance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For an example of a portal subpage with lots (at least relative to the number of constructive edits) of vandalism see Portal:Physics/Intro. DexDor (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've had a couple of discussions where I essentially challenged editors to bring Portal:Donald Trump to MfD; I didn't expect to be taken up on it. Does it meet the current guidelines: clearly yes. The problem with PoV is true for all polarising political figures, but is particularly difficult where the subject is living and doubly so when they are in office and when elections are upcoming. If stealth vandalism is an issue, could we edit-lock the subpages? I'm not sure how major a problem vandalism is on portal subpages in general. I've just gone through all the text subpages of one of my portals, looking at the history, and found literally no vandalism at all over its more than a decade of existence. I'm gonna say this in bold, sorry: If this portal is deleted it is because it is found to pose insuperable problems with PoV pushing/vandalism of a BLP, NOT because it's on a single individual. As portals go, the hits are quite healthy, and as one would expect, very variable (range 21–177 since start of the year)[18]. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: you ask Does it meet the current guidelines?, and answer clearly yes.
But as far as I can see, clearly no. See WP:POG, that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
  1. The single person Donald Trump is not a "broad subject area". The scale only becomes big by widening the focus onto his whole administration, but a focus on topics that are broadly about him and his career gives us about 100 or 200 pages. In an encyclopedia with nearly 6 million pages, that's narrow.
  2. It demonstrably does not "attract large numbers of interested readers". Your comment on that is qualified by as portals go, which is a bit like describing something as "quite dry, as things in the ocean go".
  3. It also doesn't attract maintainers. Only 8 selected articles? That first-draft levels of maintenance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
100 or 200 articles? Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump counts more than 1,000 articles. There were so many articles that Trump's navbox was split into five navboxes a long time ago: generic Trump, business, family, media and presidency. The Trump sidebar includes only articles of greatest importance, based on editorial judgment and breadth of coverage by sources, and even with this severe culling it includes about 100 entries. If there are any arguments for deleting this portal, lack of subject matter is surely not one of them. — JFG talk 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I admit I didn't actually look at it in detail. Insert comment here that breaks the BLP guidelines. It does seem to have only had 8 selected articles before Transhumanist took it over. But Wikiproject Donald Trump exists, and has tagged more than a thousand articles/&c (though I note there's a lot of categories/redirects in there), and there are >20 project-tagged FA/FL/GAs , so I'd assume that one of the many editors who work in the area of US politics could flesh it out in a flash. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: Came here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics Now I am sad because you didn't challenge me to nominate this portal because I totally would have. –MJLTalk 20:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I read at WP:Other stuff exists challenge at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Narendra Modi. That Portal is analogous. Leader of the worlds largest democracy, a narrow fork of content, barely viewed, no valid objectives, with maintenance costs that detract from maintenance of mainspace. Government leaders belong wrapped up in government, and governments belong wrapped up in their nation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was unimpressed by the nomination, and unsure what option to support, but the points made by Certes crystallised my thoughts: this portal just has too many downsides. So despite I think that the nominator is at least pointing in the right direction: this is a delete.
WP:POG says that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". The narrowness of the topic is self-evident: it covers only one of the 45 holders of a political office, and its scope is elegantly covered by a single navbox: {{Donald Trump}}. WP:PG's warning against narrowness is also supported by the fact that this page attracts neither interested viewers (only 59 views of the portal per day, compared with 49,479 per day for the head article) nor maintainers. We have already deleted dozens of portals on individuals for similar reasons, and should do the same here.
Per WP:PORTAL says that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But with only 8 rotating selected articles and the next one viewable only after purging, this page offers no enhancement of the B-class head article. The head article covers far more topics without needing to refresh the page to view the next one; it has far more pictures; and with the sidebar Template:Donald Trump series and the comprehensive navbox Template:Donald Trump, it provides massively better navigation than the portal.
So as well as being a narrow topic, this portal is redundant. All of its objectives are better served by other pages.
And as a neglected page on a very high-profile person, it is highly vulnerable to attack, a vulnerability which portal advocates tell us can be reduced only by reducing quality, and eliminated only by pre-emptive protection (which policy doesn't allow).
The result is that this portal is all downside with no upside. Time to uphold policy on narrow-topic portals, and also listen to our readers ... and just delete this barely-used fork. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - This disaster is one of the best possible argument for a whole deletion of the portal space. Keep it absolutely ! I like to see this rationale endorsed (at least partially) by User:DexDor, saying [this one] is better than many/most portals. And I like also the !vote: this portal provides an objective overview of the subject and present POTUS, by User:Northamerica1000. May I respectfully underline that Portal:Donald Trump itself, this would-be best thing ever from the discovery of kimchi, is far from concurring. According to Portal:Donald Trump/Selected article/4, the actual POTUS had to wait until 2017-04-01 before being in charge.Pldx1 (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • <joke> Canvassing comment - All of the politically correct people should vote "delete" since Portal:Donald Trump is likely to assert that Trump is the current POTUS even six months after the end of his term. </joke> Pldx1 (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks to BHG for fixing that problem by deploying the despised semi-automation tools. That addresses the new points hastily invented after the original deletion rationale was so easily solved. The only argument now left is that one of the most important world figures with his own WikiProject is too narrow a scope. Certes (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It often happen that a bad nomination leads to scrutiny of the page, and other issues are discovered which lead to a delete "!vote", just a good nomination may overlook issues which lead to a "keep". It's thoroughly ABF to call the results of that hastily invented, any more than "keep" !votes derived from scrutiny are hastily invented.
Every XFD should scrutinise involve such scrutiny, and smearing it as "invented" is a very nasty way to approach a consensus-building discussion.
And as you know, the original rationale was only partially solved. As I noted above, the portal still draws on 25 subpages, which are attack vectors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – The political ascension of Donald Trump since 2015, and the relentless press coverage of anything related to his person or his presidency, have made him indeed a "broad topic area". The Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump currently tracks more than a thousand articles. While I personally fail to see how portals in general are not redundant to WikiProjects, this particular portal certainly needs to stay around unless all portals are some day obliterated from enwiki. — JFG talk 19:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    • JFG, what does “Wikipedia:WikiProject Donald Trump currently tracks“ mean by tracks? I think it means “lists”, bot updated, with nearly no one watching. Both the Portal and the WikiProject are moribund, but at least the WikiProject doesn’t pretend to be a useful page for readers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      "Tracks" means "maintains a list of". Sure, the list maintenance is automated, so what? My point is that it shows the breadth of coverage of Trump-related topics on enwp, which is an argument to keep portals (having broad subject scope and many articles). — JFG talk 00:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
      So what? Automated listing somewhere of the current state of affairs is not human editors watching for problems, or looking at trends. I think these tracking tools don't even keep records, they are just the current status. This is not editorial control. it is laissez-faire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. When saying Thanks to BHG for fixing that problem by deploying the despised semi-automation tools, User:Certes has proved how wrong BHG was when trying to fix anything in this portal. The usual way of doing of the portal-fans is simply to wait until other people do the job in their stead, rather than doing the job by themselves. And then, they only have to say: better, better, so strike your !vote. They can even add a sarcastic comment about the despised tools. What could be described as semi-automated when replacing a list in a subpage by the same list in the main page? Here is the code: {{Transclude random excerpt | paragraphs=1-3 | files=1 | more= | Trump National Golf Club Westchester | Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) | Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000 | Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign | Melania Trump | Business career of Donald Trump | Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight) | Trump Tower | }} . Pldx1 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There isn't a valid reason to have this portal, there are presidents who definitely have done more that a portal would be good for, there is enough work for Wikipedians to deal with Already. - Nolan Perry Yell at me! 22:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Honestly, I am starting to think Portals of living people are entirely problematic considering our biography of living persons policy. It's just to risky having these sorts of portals, and I can't really get the thought out of my head that we can't meat WP:BLP in this current system of semi-automation (problematic) or manual subpages (which by some conventions do remove references for better display-- also problematic). –MJLTalk 02:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - not strongly, just does not seem a good fit for WP:POG. Also, implementation seems a bit of work needed ... e.g. Portal topics line doesn’t fit the portal content or look like a great list; listing some GAs seems random rather than selecting interesting topics; listed articles are not in alphabetic order and I noticed at least one duplicate (at Insane clown)... The WikiProject page seems a better choice for now. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, who decides which topics/pages get listed, and in what order? It’s ripe for bias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is more than enough content, both available and used, to sustain a portal and I see no evidence of any POV problems, and the errors mentioned by others seem to have been fixed. The question of who gets to choose what is displayed in what order is not a reason to delete this more or less than any other portal about any topic that is possibly controversial, as the answer is that, just like like articles, it can be decided by consensus - and there is an active WikiProject that has members from across the political spectrum. It's true that most individuals cannot sustain a portal on their own, but whatever your opinion of Trump it is unarguable that he is not most individuals. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I don’t believe that there are many wikipedians who care to be involved in a Trump WikiProject or Portal who don’t care enough either way to be impartial enough to construct a Wikipedia commentary on him while pretending to be neutral. The articles being worked on are not an unbiased selection. Wikipedia should get right out of this business. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I note that you believe Wikipedia should get right out of the business of making neutral encyclopaedic content about notable topics available to readers (there is a strong community consensus that portals are part of the encyclopaedia), but could not disagree more. If you disagree that the portal is neutral then you need to discuss that with other editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Largely, neutrality is achieved by tying content, and content weighting, to sources. Portals remove explicit sourcing, and choices of featured and list articles are too disconnected from sourcing. For Portals such as Mathematics, this is not a problem, but for contentious living people, it is. Portals are inherently NPOV weak spots, as well as WP:V weak spots as pointed out by others.
          Portals are part of the encyclopedia? Are you confusing them with Wikipedia:Outlines, which are in mainspace? They are also a nice idea that doesn’t work. Do you mean Portals are part of the encyclopedia as navigation tools, like categories and navigation templates? I think they are not similar, unlike categories and navigation templates, there is no evidence they actually serve navigation, as no one uses them.
          Articles exist for making neutral encyclopaedic content about notable topics available to readers, with explicit sourcing, with core content policies (WP:V, NOR, and NPOV) carefully applied. Portals are a failed experiment. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
          • While you are entitled to your belief that portals are a failed experiment, the consensus of the community does not support that view. I am not confusing them with outlines or anything else - everything on Wikipedia that is reader facing is part of the encyclopaedia (and some stuff that isn't is too as supporting infrastructure, but that's not relevant to portals). Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
            @SmokeyJoe: You are arguing convincingly that portals are useless in general. I happen to agree with this opinion, but indeed the community has decided to keep portals alive at this time. If we're going to have any portals at all, then the Trump portal is a legitimate one with broad-enough subject matter: it largely meets current community criteria for any subject to have a portal. — JFG talk 00:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Many or most portals are useless, I'll argue that. Main page is a portal that is not useless. Portals Portal:Mathematics, Portal:History, & Portal:Science also have strong merits, and each receives thousands of views per day. The community decided to not delete all portals, a completely expected decision. If all PortalSpace were to be deleted, I would want these preserved, probably in mainspace, like Main page.
              Portal:United States is what I call borderline. Less than 250 views per day. It competes with and detracts from Portal:Society Portal:Politics. It is moderate inherent NPOV, the United States is a moderately emotive subject, adored by some hated by others. The NPOV problem of unconscious bias by the small number of self selected editors who work on it and its associated GS articles is a moderate problem.
              Portal:Donald Trump is a severe NPOV problem. The unconscious bias by the small number of self selected editors who work on it has created with a different skew on the topic than one receives from the article Donald Trump. It is less broad than Portal:United States, and completely within scope of Portal:United States.
              When you say "legitimate", are you referring to compliance with Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines aka WP:POG? That is a pariah-status guideline. It is a set of instructions on how to continue with past practice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
              If the portal guidelines are bad, let's change them. Personally I don't care about portals at all, this one or others. I'm just saying that if we don't nuke them all, I don't see a strong argument for nuking this one. — JFG talk 01:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
              There has been more portal discussion than I have read, I may have missed important arguments, but my leaning is to !vote to keep the highest level Portals, broad academic fields, Portal:Science, Portal:History, etc. These highest level portals have greater than 1000 page views per day, which is a correlating statistic, not defined requirement. None of these highest level portals will be polarizing topics (as portals are NPOV compliance weak points), none for any single person (no independent Portal:Muhammad), and for sure none will be a living person (no Portal:Donald Trump).
              If the portal guidelines are bad? 01:51, 6 September 2006‎ Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines

was de-tagged as historical by User:Ragesoss, summary "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline, but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators". I completely agree with him, it was not written as a guideline, it doesn't function as a guideline, and it was never advertised as a guideline. It has for 13 years been a backwater page for a backwater namespace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Thryduulf:, I am surprised by your assertion to @SmokeyJoe about his beliefs, in which you say "you believe Wikipedia should get right out of the business of making neutral encyclopaedic content about notable topics available to readers".
I have seen no such statement from Joe, but may have missed something. Please can you post the diffs to support that claim?
It would be an oddly extreme position, since the whole purpose of en.wp is supplying neutral encyclopaedic content about notable topics. So if your description is right, then we should move directly to a WP:NOTHERE CBAN of @SmokeyJoe ... but you should either supply the diffs to support that big claim, or withdraw your assertion.
What I have seen from Joe is his belief that WP:ENDPORTALS reached the wrong decision, and that the use of portals to showcase and/or navigate portals is a failed experiment. While Joe is fully entitled to that belief, I think that Joe should more clearly accept the consensus of the ENDPORTALS decision, and work within it unless and until it is overturned.
However, he has raised some important points here about how the structure of portals can create NPOV issues. Those issues may or may not be resolvable in this case (I fear not), or they may point to a need for wider discussion about whether portals are a suitable mechanism for presenting the existing content on some topics.
And ENDPORTALS was simply a decision not to delete all portals. It does not in any way preclude decisions that portals with particular characteristics are inappropriate, or that some individual portals are inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: SmokeyJoe's statement is the one immediately above my comment [19] Wikipedia should get right out of this business [of portals], portals present encyclopaedic content about notable topics - whether you think they do it well or badly, it is unquestionable they do. The ENDPORTALS discussion came to the clear consensus that portals are a legitimate part of the encyclopaedia so arguments predicated on them being otherwise (as almost all of SmokeyJoe's are) are unsupported by that consensus and should not hold weight in deletion discussions about individual portals. SmokeyJoe does make some arguments about the nature of this specific portal (which are the only ones that are relevant) but all of them are based on subjective opinions and, even if they are problems, they do not require deletion of the portal to resolve: if SJ, you or anyone else feels the selection of articles is not NPOV then discuss that on the talk page explaining why you think that is the case (deletion is massive overkill), if you feel the articles themselves are not NPOV then you need to discuss that on the talk page of the articles concerned (deletion of the portal cannot fix this). The aspersions about editors interested in the topic area are at absolute best irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Thryduulf - It appears that you are twisting what User:SmokeyJoe has said so as to be almost the opposite of what he said, and that is enough to make me question your good faith. SmokeyJoe never said that Wikipedia is not in the business of presenting neutral encyclopedic content. He did say that we should get out of some business, but that business appears to mean either presenting biased content as neutral content, or making an elaborate judgment as to what mixture of content is neutral (that is, what synthesis to do). If it isn't clear what I am saying, maybe I need to develop a parse-tree. But it appears that you are twisting the words of User:SmokeyJoe, and I wonder why. I know why you would twist the words of User:BrownHairedGirl, but I don't see what User:SmokeyJoe has done to get you to try to misrepresent his positions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't !voted on either the Trump portal or the Obama portal yet. (I did vote on Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I am not intentionally twisting the words of anybody, here or elsewhere (and I would really appreciate an end to your assumption of bad faith towards me, it is not accurate) - my interpretation of what SmokeyJoe said is that Wikipedia should get out of the business of portals. The entire point of portals is to present neutral encyclopaedic content to readers. The clear inference of that is that Wikipedia should not be in the business of presenting neutral encyclopaedic content to readers. If that was not the intent behind his words then he is perfectly free to correct me and explain what he actually meant - at least so far he has chosen not to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Please get off Thryduulf's back about this layered misinterpretation. I read Thryduulf as arguing that Portals are part of the public-facing content, connected to mainspace, and (in my words), content policies NPOV, V and NOR, and BLP, permeate portals and they are compliant. I disagree. Portals, having disencumbered themselves from sourcing rules, have a separation from WP:V and BLP, and worst, NPOV, and are not like mainspace in ease of applying content policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to get in the middle of whatever seems to have developed above, but I do want to state my own opinion on a narrow matter that was recently brought up. I just think that the equation of reader facing content with encyclopaedic content is slightly absurd. The main page is in no way a part of this encyclopedia nor in of itself additional content. It just serves it as an integral part of this project to build an encyclopedia. Portals can matter (which I agree that they do), and they can be individually worthy of inclusion on this website additionally. However, calling them encyclopedic content is at odds with their purpose; which is not to be articles, but to be in service to our articles and readers (in some form or fashion). All the ENDPORTALS RFC had established was they they were worthy for inclusion in this project (not more nor less). –MJLTalk 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This seems to be a disagreement about terminology and whether you definine "encyclopaedia" to be "a collection of encyclopaedia articles" or "a colleciton of encyclopaedia articles and associated structure". I would very much count things like the index, title page, introduction, and appendicies as part of a paper encyclopaedia even though they are not encyclopaedia articles; and likewise I consider things like the main page, portals, redirects and (content) categories as part of the encyclopaedia. Similarly I include portals in the term "encyclopaedic content" because they contain and display encyclopaedia articles even though they are not articles themselves. This difference in terminology is potentially confusing, but not material to whether this portal should or should not exist - I think we can all agree that portals are a reader-facing part of the project to build an encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as creator, as others have stated, there is an active WikiProject and plenty of content to sustain the portal, POV or other issues should be discussed elsewhere (even though I don't see any issues with that as-is). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination; major unreferenced WP:BLP and WP:NPV issues, and one not-yet-full-term president (out of 45) or one country (out of ~200) does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirements of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Arguments have been made for retention and for deletion. In my opinion, subjects that are typically the subject of battleground editing are not useful for portals. Such subjects include areas that have historically been real battlegrounds that are the subject of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. American politics since 1932 is subject to discretionary sanctions, and Mr. Trump is the most polarizing figure in a country whose political landscape is far too polarized. It is hard enough for the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia administrators to deal with battleground editing without a portal as another focal point. I think that I will express the same opinion on any other polarizing American politicians. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is best to avoid creating portals for individual people, especially if they are living. SD0001 (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The nominator says that this portal is barely viewed. Not really. It has 59 average daily pageviews. That is very high for a portal. To be sure, the head article has an average daily 49,479 daily page views. That's a ratio of 839:1, which just illustrates that portals are a nothing feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This portal has been viewed much more since the date of this MfD nomination, 4/5/2019. Before that, the daily views were less than 40.
Wikipedia's single functional portal, aka Main Page, Daily average: 16,470,971
This portals parent article, Donald Trump, Daily average: 39,150
This portal is barely viewed. It is content-policy non-compliant (lack of explicit sourcing), and is a huge NPOV vulnerability. It currently exhibits the unconscious bias of anti-Trumpism, due to the tendency of Wikipedians to work with more interest on Trump-critical articles, and for a Portal to reflect the set of good articles more than the preponderance of external independent sourcing (like the parent article does). If anti-Trump malicious person has bothered to take advantage of the vulnerability of this Portal, is because they have no reason to think that anyone cares about it. 40 views per day is is more easily achieved with back alley graffiti.
If 59 is "very high for a portal", then the typical portal is pretty sad. In my perusing of portals and their page views, I think a suitable threshold is more like 1000 views per day. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Per What links here, there are presently 214 main namespace articles that have a link to the portal. Adding more links to articles tends to increase page views, whereas lesser visible links equates to lesser page views. North America1000 09:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Only 54 of the current 1214 portals exceed 100 view per day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl, yes. That’s right. Thanks for the link, is it exactly what I am speaking to. The top portal, Main Page, is not listed, the top three are funny Portals but ok fine, the next seven are exactly the broad topic inherently NPOV suitable Portals that are great for navigation. After #10 there is a big step to the lesser portals. Keep Portal:Geography, Delete Portal:Society and all lesser portals as failing their basic reason for existence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, I think we should continue this discussion, but take it somewhere else. Is WT:WPPORT okay with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extremely useful "Trump news tracker" since Trump is the most newsworthy person in the history of the world. It's also completely NPOV because Portal:Current events is maintained by many editors, who all value NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 23:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • If there is a prize for hyper-extreme WP:RECENTISM, Wumbolo has just won it. Forget Stalin, Jesus, Buddha, Hitler, Mohammed, Lincoln, etc ... just look at the now. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: Perhaps you just fell victim to Poe's law in Wumbolo's rationale? — JFG talk 14:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Possibly, @JFG. However, if that sort of hyperbole was the intent, then it fails in ASCII text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Delete. The topic of DT is mostly a subset of the topic of US presidential politics in the 21st century, which is a subset of the topic of US politics, which is a subset of politics, which is a subset of the scope of the whole encyclopedia. When the term "broad subject area" is used in conjunction with "main page" it's reasonable to interpret "broad subject area" as meaning one, or possibly 2-3, levels down from main page (i.e. it's not about how many articles there are about the topic).  Viewed in that way DT (or any other single person) is not a broad subject area. In addition for a living person there are BLP/POV concerns and a strong likelihood that the portal will not be maintained (e.g. Obama's portal still said he was president for months after he wasn't).  Having a clear rule of no portals about individual people would help to avoid further discussions about deletion of such portals. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think it's already consensus that portals about biographies do not meet WP:POG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Many biographies don't meet POG but it's not axiomatic that none of them do. For example, Jesus is obviously a a broad topic which could satisfy WP:POG. Certes (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    Jesus and Muhammad belong in Portals Christianity and Islam, which belong in Portal:Religion. So many thinly sliced subportals hurt the higher portals. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing exactly what I would call consensus here ... not sure relisting is going to get there, but, before closing as no consensus, figure it's worth one more shot
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 03:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral: if portals are for anyone, they're for Donald Trump. There are a ton of articles on him, his stuff, what he's done, what he's said, because everything he does is basically inherently notable because of the media focus on him. No doubt, this portal could be improved bigly, but the usual concerns don't seem to apply. At a glance, I can't see any issue in terms of POV such as the way content is selected, but please ping me back if I'm missing something. SITH (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just noticed this quote: Donald Trump warrants a portal (if we have portals). There is enough depth and breadth of articles and reader and editor interest around any recent US President. Its source may surprise you. Certes (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Music Portals by MoxyEdit

25 pages
Portal:Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Neil Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Celine Dion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Already in an earlier nom. Working from different lists
Portal:Pink Floyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Jackson Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Janet Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Shania Twain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Frank Zappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Aerosmith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Avril Lavigne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Queen (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Bob Dylan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Supremes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Beatles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:U2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Grateful Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Iron Maiden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:The Kinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Miles Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Whitney Houston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to closing Admin - all of these are based on subpages which will also need to be deleted if this closes delete

Single person and band music portals built by User:Moxy. Most he created and a few he built out the portal and the subpages after someone else started the page. Moxy supports deletion of these pages now [20] Many MFDs have found even top singers and bands are not broad enough topics to meet WP:POG.

See also extensive reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#People Portals A-C Thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep for now Portal:Elvis Presley and Portal:The Beatles; Delete the rest, including, of course, all of their many, many, many subpages, as not meeting the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. I note that Elvis Presley and The Beatles are Level-3 Vital Articles (i.e., the top 1,000) and have WikiProjects dedicated to them. I focus on the guideline's wording, not a portal's ancestry or maintenance state (unless it is an absolute unsalvageable mess, of course, in which case WP:TNT would apply). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @UnitedStatesian, even Elvis and the Beatles have truly abysmal levels of pageviews. See the figures for January–March 2019:
    1. Portal:The Beatles: Daily average=15
    2. Portal:Elvis Presley: Daily average=12.
    The data is there time and time and again. It repeatedly shows that readers simply do not want this type of navigation for a single narrow topic. The head article is a vastly better navigational hub in most cases, and clearly does the job well enough for readers not to be looking for portals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep All. No prejudice toward nominating separately. Also consider only bundling the newer, automated portals, and omitting the curated ones from this nomination, to perhaps be nominated individually.
  • Importantly, users may not realize that some portals listed here are curated, instead just assuming that they're all automated. Per WP:PRESERVE, I feel that curated portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • Many of these portals are based upon major musicians and bands that have significant content about them available on Wikipedia. Two have already been identified in the opinion of the !vote above as meeting WP:POG.
  • Bundling for these portals in this manner makes researching each portal individually, on a case-by-case basis, and then providing rationales for each one, extremely labor-intensive and time-consuming. Bundling makes it easy to cast a single !vote for the bunch, but significantly hinders the ability for users to discuss each one individually.
  • While Moxy may have been the creator, from a spot check, some have been expanded by various other users.
  • For curated portals, this typically needs to ascertained by viewing the Revision histories of a portal's subpages.
  • Main portal pages for curated ones often provide no evidence of portal updates, improvements or maintenance, because additions and changes typically occur on subpages.
North America1000 16:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all STOP typing stuff up that insinuates that I said something incorrectly. Your participation around portals is part of the problem not part of the solution. These are very old portals although several have been "upgraded" to the automated design. The nomination clearly says they all have subpages. The guy that built them has said he does not maintain them anymore. Check the talkpages and you will find little evidence anyone else maintains them. Do your own investigation and show us which ones are maintained instead of vaguingly telling everyone we are too dumb to figure things out. Even reading the portals for the live people who are still active you can tell they are out of date forks of mainspace. Also, nothing you typed goes to the core issue that single people/bands do not meet WP:POG and we have deleted nearly every example brought to MFD this year, old style and new style. See [21] Legacypac (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The 2nd sentence of WP:PRESERVE is "Preserve appropriate content.". Portals are a copy of content. No content (i.e. facts about the world outside wp) should be lost from wp by deletion of portal pages. DexDor (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete all - 1. These narrow topic portals (biographies, objects, companies, etc.) present exactly the same content as the article. (I have not found a tool that allows me to compare wikilinks (Forward-links), but they are visibly the same). 2. These narrow-topic portals present a relation "(portal pageviews * 100) / article pageviews < 0.1", usually portals with broad topics have this relation "> 0.1", this shows that readers do not use these portals to seek new information about the topic. 3. Purposes of portals#3, Providing bridges between reading and editing. The vast majority of the portals listed fail in this one. 4. These portals are very distant from the main page according to Portals tree fail in aiding navigation.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all. A single musician or band fails the WP:POG requirement that portals should cover "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. I was working from two totally different lists. At least I don't make duplicate portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete these portals
Listing one by one, to be sure
- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-11-25 03:41:45 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Justin Bieber
- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2010-01-05 00:08:28 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Neil Young
- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-01-15 20:58:14 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Pink Floyd
- Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2010-01-09 04:11:10 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Rolling Stones
- Old portal, 24 subpages, created 2010-01-09 04:11:10 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Rolling Stones (was duplicated in the nomination)
- Old portal, 33 subpages, created 2010-01-14 19:49:15 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Michael Jackson
- Old portal, 25 subpages, created 2010-04-04 19:59:22 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Jackson Family
- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2010-01-05 20:40:56 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Shania Twain
- Old portal, 15 subpages, created 2010-04-02 18:08:16 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Frank Zappa
- Old portal, 13 subpages, created 2010-06-08 03:18:54 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Avril Lavigne
- Old portal, 18 subpages, created 2010-02-23 22:49:30 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Queen (band)
- Old portal, 18 subpages, created 2010-01-21 05:22:52 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Bob Dylan
- Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2010-02-01 23:14:51 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Supremes
- Old portal, 55 subpages, created 2011-01-04 19:32:35 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Grateful Dead
- Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2010-05-10 17:37:25 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:Iron Maiden
- Old portal, 17 subpages, created 2010-01-21 04:06:13 by User:Moxy at some request. No more maintained : Portal:The Kinks
Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment
- Old portal, 15 subpages, created 2006-11-01 14:17:51 by User:Metnever. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Rush
- Old portal, 20 subpages, created 2007-12-12 02:17:46 by User:MegX. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Led Zeppelin
- Old portal, 23 subpages, created 2010-05-14 07:06:31 by User:Gabe19. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Janet Jackson
- Old portal, 35 subpages, created 2007-05-07 08:09:39 by User:Janadore. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Aerosmith
- Old portal, 102 subpages, created 2005-12-02 12:28:35 by User:194.80.20.10. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:The Beatles
- Old portal, 333 subpages, created 2007-06-25 17:16:45 by User:Smithcool. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:U2
- Old portal, 40 subpages, created 2007-12-25 15:29:36 by User:Riana. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Elvis Presley
- Old portal, 26 subpages, created 2011-01-05 13:31:42 by User:Tomcat7. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Miles Davis
- Old portal, 16 subpages, created 2011-07-09 10:34:56 by User:Ryoga Godai. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:Whitney Houston
- Old portal, 56 subpages, created 2007-02-14 22:37:13 by User:HK51. A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day. Portal:AC/DC
None of these 27 portals are maintained, at least not to the point that someone stepped forward and put her name in the maintainer= item of the maintenance template. All are to be deleted if the situation remains. Moreover, this doesn't preclude the argument about 'no single singer'.
Pldx1 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. And this applies exactly here: if no one wants to maintain any of these portals, then no one else is required to assume the burden of keeping such abandoned remains of the past. And therefore, delete them all is what to be done. Pldx1 (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is unfair to make a !vote contingent on a maintainer's comment if only the first editor was notified; accordingly (and only because it seems you are soliciting such a comment) I have put the MfD notice for two of these on two WikiProject talk pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dear User:UnitedStatesian. The WP:NOTCOMPULSORY argument is a double edged sword. When an portal is not maintained to the point that no maintainer1= is provided, this is a fact. When I say that I could change my opinion from Comment to Keep if a maintainer appear, this is another fact. But I can also change my opinion from Comment to Delete if someone really try hard to compulse me to do my homework. From [xtools Portal:Bob Dylan], we have:
# User Edits min maj from to bytes
2 Moxy 11 9 2 2010-01-21 05:22 2011-01-05 06:09 1824
1 The Transhumanist 12 0 12 2018-04-11 11:16 2019-02-06 11:32 785
4 Dreamy Jazz 3 2 1 2018-05-25 21:25 2018-07-15 20:45 340
3 Northamerica1000 5 0 5 2011-11-19 21:43 2011-11-19 21:47 169
9 Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 1 0 1 2019-01-12 02:26 2019-01-12 02:26 58
8 Legacypac 1 0 1 2019-04-12 13:04 2019-04-12 13:04 29
15 Bserin 1 0 1 2010-10-05 08:45 2010-10-05 08:45 25
13 Tadiranscopus 1 0 1 2011-12-27 12:10 2011-12-27 12:10 25
6 JLJ001 1 1 0 2018-05-27 21:58 2018-05-27 21:58 22
11 WOSlinker 1 0 1 2015-02-28 21:27 2015-02-28 21:27 6
7 Koavf 1 1 0 2010-09-01 02:56 2010-09-01 02:56 0
14 Bearcat 1 0 1 2011-12-06 11:09 2011-12-06 11:09 0
12 Sardanaphalus 1 0 1 2014-07-12 00:09 2014-07-12 00:09 0
10 Regi-Iris Stefanelli 1 0 1 2016-10-17 13:34 2016-10-17 13:34 0
5 Timrollpickering 1 1 0 2018-10-24 18:27 2018-10-24 18:27 0
Since I don't think that changing −- <center>{{Purgepage}}</center> -- into -- {{center|{{purgepage}}}} -- is really a major contribution, then all the people that could deserve a notification have already been advised. Moreover, A comment by a maintainer, if any, could make the day had the subliminal meaning: don't say keep, unless you step forward and become one of the maintainer of one of these un-maintained and un-visited portals. Pldx1 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Portal Bob Dylan as un-maintained and un-visited portal. With no prejudice toward the "too narrow topic" argument. Pldx1 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice chart. We know TTH's and Dreamy Jazz edits are almost always mass passes across hundreds or thousands of portals the meaningful edits are all from Moxy. Moxy suggested we delete these pages and specifically says he is not maintaining them. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete All. Main article for each musician or band is a better place to provide links to other relevant articles. Page view statistics indicate that users do not find these portals useful (or know they exist). Creator supports their deletion. Oska (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep All - Enough of a mess already. This train is heading to limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all without prejudice to smaller, focused nominations based on the content available for the portals. The portals listed here are hugely different in both scope and history meaning this nomination was always going to be the trainwreck it is. The user who created the portals is entirely irrelevant to nearly every reason why a portal should be kept or deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all, it has been well-established that nobody visits these pages. 15 page views/day is not worth the time it takes to maintain these pages. We have an encyclopedia to build. Levivich 05:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • It has been well established that community consensus is that portals form part of the encyclopaedia. 15 views a days is significantly more views than some articles get - as just one example Gounou Gaya averages just 2 views per day. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Nominator is now under a ban. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all: yes, this nomination is a bit messy. However, an individual musician does not satisfy the criterion of a "broad subject area". If they were all nominated in separate bundles, they'd all get deleted. SITH (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was heavily involved in the Bob Dylan Project a few years ago and upon returning recently, I learned Dylan's Portal may be deleted. I find this disappointing and may not be alone: I checked the history and found there were well over 1,000 views this past month, so it's not dormant in that sense. I understand there may be a problem with maintenance, and I'm willing to help in any way I can, short of higher end admin tasks. Also, I'm not sure what the issue is regarding the "scope" of portals tied to biographies, but it should be noted that hundreds of articles are associated with Dylan and that the main article is so extensive it falls short of being a central destination. Therein lies one of the problems: access. The main link to the Portal is buried under See Also, 18,000 words from the top, and the link above the "sister" articles is even more obscure. Better, I think, to provide a link somewhere else: at the top, in the infobox, in the Contents. Just suggesting. Allreet (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Dear User:Allreet, I haven't any doubt you were heavily involved in the WikiProject Bob Dylan ... some times ago. It remains that you never edited this specific Portal:Bob Dylan (see the analysis published just above), while the page views are not what you are saying: [wmflabs] attests 15 views per day, to be compared with 1,052 views per day for the Bob_Dylan_discography and 9,157 views per day for the Bob Dylan article itself. When TTH took, circa May 2018, the editorial decision to nuke the abandoned manual version of this portal then exactly nobody emitted a protest, and this for an obvious reason. Reverting to this abandoned version, with TWO articles, TWO songs and TWO pictures would only be a joke against our readers. Pldx1 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dear User:Allreet. Thanks for publishing the request you used. When extending the observation period into [All the 90 last days], one can see the influence of the present MfD on the pageviews. As a result, you were totally right when not editing this portal that nobody looks at. Pldx1 (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice regarding individual nominations. Many of these certainly have sufficient scope to have portal in their own right. Other comments concerning the content of these portals are by definition content discussions not deletion discussions. WP:DEL-CONTENT is pretty clear in that regard. WaggersTALK 15:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • 21 of these 25 are manual portals with subpages, which require ongoing maintenance. The other four ( P:Shania Twain, P:Avril Lavigne, P:The Supremes, P:Grateful Dead) have been converted to automated portals using the deprecated technique of drawing their article list from a single navbox, and should be reverted to a curated format.
WP:POG specifically warns that "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create.".
But I have just checked each of these 25 portals, and not one of them has a current maintainer. Even in the 30 days that this nomination has been open, no maintainer has come forward for any of them ... even though these portals have all been prominently tagged with a deletion notice, and the relevant WikiProjects have been alerted through the alerts system.
So preserving these portals would be just preserving a set of rotting WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.
And WP:DEL-CONTENT doesn't apply, because it is all about content, whereas portals are just summarised content forks; the actual content remains in the articles.
But if Waggers does want to apply WP:DEL-CONTENT, he should read the first line "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". And we have an answer to that "if": editing cannot improve these pages, because editing requires an editor, and nobody has volunteered to do it.
And there is also WP:DEL-REASON #5: Content forks. If, as Waggers claims, these collections of subpages are actual content, then they are content forks, and can be deleted as such.
So there are both specific-guideline and broad policy reasons for deletion, and their creator is happy for them all to be deleted[22]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Please close. It seems to me that there is a clear consensus here to delete all except Portal:Bob Dylan, Portal:Elvis Presley and Portal:The Beatles, and that those 3 would benefit from separate discussion. I will leave a note at WP:ANRFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure which discussion you're reading, but I don't see a clear consensus for anything either as a group or individually here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thryduulf, the first !vote is a keep for a few named portal, and delete the rest. The "keep" by Allreet applies only to one portal. That leaves a clear consensus to delete the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Ignoring the arguments (which the closer will not be doing, I hope) and just counting noses I see: 4 !votes to keep all, 5 to delete all, 1 to keep Bob Dylan (with no clear opinion expressed about the rest) and 1 to Keep Elvis Presley and The Beatles but delete the rest. If we take that as 5 keep votes for each of the three named portals, 4 keep votes for the remainder and 5/6 votes to delete those not named that's not a clear consensus in favour of keeping or deleting any of them. When the strength of the arguments are considered a consensus may emerge regarding some or all of them, but as editors who have strong opinions neither you nor I are in a position to make a fair assessment of that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep this deletion discussion (as suggested above). Like other discussions where many portals are listed in one MfD, it ends up being harder to discern consensus. IMO, it's best if portals are nominated in smaller batches (when the portals have major connecting characteristics) or individually, so that each portal can be evaluated on their own individual and specific nature. This vote isn't saying that I want to keep or delete these portals. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. These portals are largely abandoned, and only degrading the integrity of the main articles (a reader reaching them will get the impression WP is dying; clearly so in some cases). None of them give much beyond the band's main article+naxbox and a couple of random bits of information. If the WP community was 10x its current editing power, and had enthusiasts who wanted to actively manage a band portal page, then these would make sense. But we don't have that, and we seem to be advocating a WP that never seems to have existed (and may never do so; however, if things change, they can always be re-activated). We should not be afraid of the creative destruction cycle, where things that don't work get removed, and things that do work get supported. That is why the Encylopedia Britannica is not the world's largest online encyclopedia, and WP is. We should not be afraid/nostalgic/inertial of this – we should embrace it. Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alabay (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having gotten involved in several MfD's of portals (and read through BHG's main threads), I am only beginning to realize the enormous scale of this problem, and the negative effect of these abandoned portals on the integrity of WP's main articles+navboxes in the eyes of our readers (notwithstanding that a high proportion of these portals are simply an out-of-date cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox; and in some cases the main article is itself out-of-date and/or tagged for issues and in desperate need of scarce editing resources).
Some of the support for abandoned portals is like Japanese holdouts after WW2. The more correct analogy is a holdout who left their island shortly after their posting, went to another country, got married and had kids, but ten years later when a ship appeared off the island, they ran back, put on the uniform, and starting waving a samurai sword on the beach. Britishfinance (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - You asked, last month, in this stalled MFD: '15 a day? [Pageviews of Portal:The Beatles. That has to be the busiest portal other than Portal:Current events. I'm serious, is there one that gets more page views than that? ' Yes, there are busier portals, both that have been nominated and that have not been nominated. Try Portal:Christianity at 119 daily pageviews, and Portal:Germany at 104 daily pageviews. Try Portal:Time at 45 daily pageviews and Portal:Cold War at 34 daily pageviews. Of course, the head articles have pageviews in the thousands. So there are more-accessed portals, although not much more accessed, and not comparable to the accesses of articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment A further thought that I had on the Santana Portal MfD; how are WP band portals going to compete with Facebook-band portals. While it might have seemed possible a decade ago, there is no way a fan is going to start supporting a WP-band portal when they have a much better platform with a Facebook-band portal (and linked to WP for content). In this regard, not only do WP-band portals not have much of a history, but I cannot see how they can have a future either? We should stick to what we can be distinctive, and avoid competing with Facebook? Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 20 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) 19:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Analysis of Music PortalsEdit

The following table shows the average daily pageviews of the portals and the lead articles for the period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019, and the ratio, and the percent (the reciprocal of the ratio). The table shows these metrics for the 25 Moxy portals (listed on 12 April and relisted on 24 May), the Adele portal (renominated on 24 May), and 4 portals that were nominated on 18 May.

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
Eminem 13 19,275 1482.7 0.07%
Rihanna 16 14,713 919.6 0.11%
Taylor Swift 9 17,722 1969.1 0.05%
The Clash 7 2,407 343.9 0.29%
Adele 14 7,403 528.8 Second nomination 0.19%
Justin Bieber 18 18,943 1052.4 Did something happen on 8 Feb? Accesses peak then. 0.10%
Rush 9 3,334 370.4 0.27%
Neil Young 8 5,806 725.8 0.14%
Pink Floyd 13 8,655 665.8 0.15%
The Rolling Stones 9 7,314 812.7 0.12%
Led Zeppelin 14 8,103 578.8 0.17%
Michael Jackson 24 28,527 1188.6 0.08%
The Jackson Family 85 3,956 46.5 2.15%
Janet Jackson 7 5,926 846.6 0.12%
Shania Twain 12 4,927 410.6 Median 8. Portal access has weird peak 6 Jan. 0.24%
Frank Zappa 8 4,201 525.1 0.19%
Aerosmith 10 3,224 322.4 0.31%
Avril Lavigne 9 10,197 1133.0 Peak on 15 Feb in article access. 0.09%
Queen (band) 50 59,785 1195.7 Article and portal accesses peak on 25 Feb. 0.08%
Bob Dylan 15 9,373 624.9 0.16%
The Supremes 7 2,437 348.1 0.29%
The Beatles 15 14,088 939.2 0.11%
U2 9 3,993 443.7 0.23%
Grateful Dead 23 2,898 126.0 0.79%
Iron Maiden 11 3,877 352.5 0.28%
The Kinks 8 1,987 248.4 0.40%
Elvis Presley 12 24,375 2031.3 0.05%
Miles Davis 7 3,603 514.7 0.19%
Whitney Houston 7 12,726 1818.0 0.06%
AC/DC 10 7,542 754.2 0.13%

As can be seen, no article has fewer than 1900 daily pageviews. No portal has more than 85 daily pageviews, and only two portals have more than 25 daily pageviews. There are surprises, such as that Queen is the most frequently accessed portal and second most frequently accessed article (but this may have been associated with a recent movie), and that the Jackson Family had high portal access, while its most famous member, Michael Jackson, had (expectedly) high article access. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Bob Dylan do not have high rates of portal views. This confirms two related conclusions. First, portals, in general, have very low rates of access. Second, any a priori statement that a subject is a "broad subject area" and will sustain a portal can be shown a posteriori to be incorrect for individual performers.

Further Discussion of Moxy PortalsEdit
add your keep/delete/comment here

May 23, 2019Edit

Portal:Social and political philosophyEdit

Portal:Social and political philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static micro-portal with one article and one biog. Abandoned since 2009, creator blocked since 2014, redundant to head articles and navbox.

Created[23] in June 2009‎ by Gregbard (talk · contribs), who has been blocked since 2014 for copyvios[24]. However, that leaves five years in which Gregbard didn't develop this portal, but should have — the lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Social and political philosophy shows a rather impressive list of sub-pages ... until you look more closely, because most of them are blank, and have been blank since 2009:

WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". In Jan–Feb 2019 this one got 86 pageviews per day, well in excess of the abysmal median of 13 views per day for all portals, but still less tha 10% of the 879 daily views for Political philosophy.

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 articles Political philosophy and Social philosophy, and their comprehensive shared navbox Template:Social and political philosophy which has links to 192 articles.

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

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

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

The availability of built-in-preview and built-in image gallery sets a very high bar for any portal which actually aims to meet that WP:PORTAL principle and add value for the reader.

But it is theoretically possible that some day a group of editors may collaborate to build and — crucially — maintain a portal which genuinely adds extra value for readers. 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) 23:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: unmaintained portals fail their reason for existence. SITH (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG and with comment by SITH. Creating portals is easy. Maintaining them is work, but unmaintained portals are troublesome. In view of the high pageview rate, a new properly maintained portal should be welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Peer reviewEdit

Portal:Peer review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal on the narrow topic of peer review. Untouched since 2008 apart from a few diambiguations etc.

Created[25] in February 2008‎ by Msanford (talk · contribs), who made less than 600 edits in all between 2008 and 2013. The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Peer review shows a modest set of sub-pages, all of which were created in 2008 by Msanford. They include 8 article pages and one biography, and a DYK page:

A good portal would separate these strands, but the narrowness of the topic makes that difficult: Category:Peer review contains only 29 items.

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 this is a very narrow topic, and it clearly has not been maintained.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on these link to the article Peer review or Category:Peer review.
  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 Nature (journal).

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

Since this is such a narrow topic, and a portal can add so little value, I think it's best to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: too narrow scope, not curated enough. SITH (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. At first I was hoping that this was about either WIkipedia:Peer review or about software peer review, which is a similar but somewhat different process. However, covering software peer review also still would not make this a broad area. Portal has 7 daily average pageviews, and has been abandoned (originator inactive since 2013). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:KashmirEdit

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

Abandoned mini-portal on the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent. Redundant to the head article Kashmir and its three navboxes ... and its under-watched content-forked sub-pages are un-needed vulnerability to POV-pushing in a region with unresolved international conflict, which on Wikipedia is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBIPA.

Created[27] in December 2014‎ by Changetrl (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in January 2015. The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Kashmir shows a modest set of sub-pages, but mnay of them are blank, e.g. Portal:Kashmir/Selected article/3, Portal:Kashmir/Selected article/4 and Portal:Kashmir/Selected biography/5 and Portal:Kashmir/Selected picture/5. There are only 6 selected topics in all, and no new topics have been added since 2015. There is no news page, no list of topics apart from a navbox, no DYKs, no separation of topics by group (e.g. history, geography, arts).

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 Kashmir, with its 3 navboxes: {{Azad Kashmir topics}}, {{Jammu and Kashmir topics}} and {{Kashmir conflict}}. Between them, those navboxes offer a total of 376 unique links.

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

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

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

That sets a very high bar for any portal aiming to actually value to the reader over and above the main page.

But it is theoretically possible that some day a group of editors may collaborate to build and — crucially — maintain a portal which genuinely adds extra value for readers. 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) 19:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This appears to be the whole divided region, of which the Pakistani portion has its own portal that is also under discussion. I concur with the analysis by BHG and the conclusion that portals for topics that are subject to discretionary sanctions due to battleground editing due to a history of real battles are not likely to work. The portal has 15 daily pageviews. Traffic to the article fluctuates wildly, probably due to edit-warring (over a region that has had real wars). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the usual issues of de facto breadth, navbox forking and dustiness. Compounded by the fact that it's just a stale POV magnet. SITH (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:RavidassiaEdit

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

Abandoned static micro-portal on a narrow topic: the Ravidassia religion.

Created[28] in February 2012‎ by McKinseies (talk · contribs), who made only 586 live edits in all, the last in 2012, and also created the defunct WikiProject Ravidassia. The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Ravidassia shows a limited set of sub-pages, but a significant proportion are blank or duplicates, e.g.

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 updates. More importantly, it was never even properly started: portals are supposed to be gateways to content, but these unlinked pages are just dead-ends.

WP:POG requirement that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". Bur Ravidassis is a narrow topic, and it has consistently failed to attract 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 Ravidassia religion and its excellent sidebar navbox Template:Ravidasi.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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 then select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).

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

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Ravidassia religion with its sidebar {{Ravidasi }}.

I usually propose that abandoned portals should be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal. But in this case, the topic is so narrow and the WikiProject is dead, so I think it would be better to just delete it, along with its sub-pages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Portal has had average of 8 daily pageviews, which is not a large number of interested readers. As noted, portal is abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned portals fail their reason for existing. SITH (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:DiscriminationEdit

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

I believe this portal is abandoned and also that portals are not the appropriate place for non-unanimous topics. Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Section Contents Last add of content
Introduction The same of the article. Discrimination
Selected article 5 articles (2 already listed in the article Discrimination) 2007‎
Selected picture 6 pictures 2008
Did you know 7 DYK 2008
Topic The same of the Template:Discrimination in the article. Discrimination
Categories 8 Categories 2008
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. :Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:International volleyball, open in a private/incognito tab, and mouseover any link
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Discrimination, open in a private/incognito tab, and click on any image
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
That sets a very high bar for any portal to satisfy the principle of WP:PORTAL that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". And this abandoned portal is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Discrimination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Very interesting analysis. Would you like to include it HERE?Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, @Guilherme Burn. It's a point which I have been making repeatedly at MFD for over a month, and if you follow recent MFDs you can see that it's a boilerplate text which I adapt for the occasion. I think it would fit well in that essay, but the essay is in @DexDor's own userspace, so it wouldn't be right for me to edit that page without permission. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, User:Guilherme Burn, I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl on the matter of the essay. If User:DexDor were to move the essay into project space, a better case would be made that other editors could expand it. I might consider copying some of my portal essays in. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: unmaintained, potential for POV selection, superseded by navbox. SITH (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - The pageviews tell a different story than usual. The portal has an average of 52 daily pageviews, which is more than most, but it means that the readers are reading non-current stuff. I concur with the concerns expressed about POV magnetism. The title of the portal and head article, and thus the scope, are ambiguous. The modern usage of the word primarily refers to what is legally referred to as invidious discrimination, because 'to discriminate' means simply to make a distinction, and, depending on what the distinction is, that may be a necessary use of the human brain, or a misuse of the human brain. A potentially troublesome portal that doesn't have a maintainer should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. As other editors have stated, it's a POV magnet; and serves no reliable function. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This portal appears to have had a strange history in 2007, but that was simply page move vandalism, and the vandal was soon indeffed. So the discussion should be on the merits of the portal or lack thereof. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SwimmingEdit

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

Static micro-portal abandoned since 2006. No list of topics, no rotation of topics, just a few changes to some of the sub-pages.

Created[30] in March 2006‎ YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), whos elast edit was in 2010. The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Swimming shows only 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 well over 100 updates in all.

In theory, swimming 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". It has had only v occasional updates to only some pages, but has not been maintained.

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 swimming.

Maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 17:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MossesEdit

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

Delete Abandoned mini-portal (3 articles, 2 pictures, 3 species) on a subject that does not meet the WP:POG guideline's breadth of subject area requirement and that can be more than adequately covered by Portal:Plants. No associated WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. 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 clearly does not meet that standard. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator and BHG. Author inactive since 2017. Heritage portal with subpages. Has daily average 3 pageviews, so not attracting readers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do disused botanical portals get covered with moss? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: let's not beat about the bush, but let's kick it into the long grass. Sorry, I couldn't resist it. But yes, usual issues apply per nom. SITH (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete As Moses said, thou shall delete Mosses. Let's not beat about the Burning bush. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Railways in IndiaEdit

Portal:Railways in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned portal about Rail transport in India.

Created[38] in September 2009‎ by Sharadbob (talk · contribs), whose last edit to this nportal was in 2010[39]. The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Railways in India shows an initially encouraging list of pages. But on closer inspection it is is less impressive:

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 110 updates, but it seems that have only two partial updates, in 2017 and 2018 .

India has a lot of railways, so theory, this a broad topic. But in practice, it has been almost unmaintained.

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 Rail transport in India.

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

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

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Confucianism with its sidebar {{Confucianism}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 11:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: abandoned portals serve no purpose. SITH (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:North American railwaysEdit

Portal:North American railways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static micro-portal, abandoned since 2011. No list of topics, no rotation of topics, never updated.

Created[47] in February 2011‎ by Chnou (talk · contribs), who also created and abandoned sveral other portals as little more than drafts. See e.g. MFD:3 abandoned draft portals by Chnou and MFD:Portal:Brittany.

The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:North American railways shows a tiny 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 consecutive updates.

There are a lot of miles of rail track in North America, so 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". It has consistently failed to attract maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 10:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: abandoned portals serve no purpose. SITH (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. There is no single head article to compare this portal against (and so I am very skeptical of the idea that someone will build a better portal), but, hey, maybe we need as many as disused unfinished portals on railways (by continent or country) as we can develop. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Sri Lanka RailwaysEdit

Portal:Sri Lanka Railways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal. Redundant to the navbox Template:Rail transport in Sri Lanka.

Created[53] in December 2012‎ by Laniltm (talk · contribs), whose last portal-space edit was in November 2013[54]. The lead of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create" ... and this one has not been maintained.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Sri Lanka Railways shows a modest list of sub-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 Rail transport in Sri Lanka and its navbox Template:Rail transport in Sri Lanka.

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 clearly not been maintained.

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

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

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) 09:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: abandoned portals serve no purpose. Usual issues and provisos apply. SITH (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Yet another non-maintained portal. Creating portals, whether with subpages or robotically, is easy and fun compare to maintaining them. Portal has 7 average daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Mughal EmpireEdit

Portal:Mughal Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow topic mini-portal abandoned since creation in 2015. Lots of redlinks, redundant to the navbox Template:Mughal Empire.

Created[56] in March 2015‎ by Royroydeb (talk · contribs).

In September 2018‎ it was converted[57] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to an automated format which drew its "selected articles" list solely from the navbox Template:Mughal Empire, of which it therefore became 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).

I reverted[58] that on 12 May 2019, restoring the last non-automated version.

However, that has left a portal full of redlinks, with minimal content: Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Mughal Empire shows only 5 selected articles, with all topics unchanged since 2015 ... and Portal:Mughal Empire/Did you know, which is nothing to do with WP:DYK, just an unsourced set of bullet-point factoids.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has consistently failed to attract 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 Mughal Empire and its excellent sidebar navbox Template:Mughal Empire.

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

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

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Confucianism with its sidebar {{Confucianism}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 08:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: hasn't cast its net wide enough in terms of content selection, and there's nobody there actually casting the net. SITH (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Has an average of 9 daily pageviews. Has too many large red links, which simply indicate that it will never be finished. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:RomeEdit

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

Static micro-portatal on the city of Rome. Abandoned since 2010.

Created[59] in January 2010‎ by Theologiae (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2013.

It escaped the wave of automation in 2018, but Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Rome shows a v 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 110 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". But like most city portals, it has consistently failed to attract 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 Rome and its navboxes, e.g. Template:Monuments of Rome.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Monuments of Rome, and mouseover some links
  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 Rome, and then click on any image to start the slideshow.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Rome.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 07:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Analysis of Rome and City PortalsEdit

I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl.

Philosophers make a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, between knowledge that is available in advance and knowledge that must be based on observation. The advocates of portals frequently say that a particular topic is a broad subject area, and so the subject should have a portal. It is possible to decide a priori that particular types of subject areas, such as countries, or big cities, are broad subject areas. However, that is an incomplete quotation of the portal guidelines, and, because of its incompleteness, is misleading. The portal guidelines say that "portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." It is not possible to decide a priori that a subject area will attract readers and portal maintainers. That must be observed, and assessed a posteriori.

The following table shows data on portals about 42 cities so far, most of which are the subject of deletion discussions, and a few of which (New York City, London, and Tokyo) have been added for comparison. Some of them are small cities. Some of them are big cities. Rome, like New York City, London, Tokyo, and Beijing, is not only a big city, but one of the greatest cities of the Earth. It is also an ancient city, the second oldest in the list. Data in the table is based on a baseline period of 1 Jan 2019 – 28 Feb 2019.

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
New York City 82 17,169 209.4 0.48%
Rome 45 4,734 105.2 Non-maintained heritage portal. 0.95%
London 37 15,016 405.8 Greater London = 1797 views 0.25%
Tokyo 28 6,486 231.6 Appears to be maintained. Articles are for sum of city and metro area. 0.43%
Pittsburgh 19 2,728 143.6 Editor still active 0.70%
Beijing 15 3,754 250.3 0.40%
New Orleans 13 4,825 371.2 Author inactive since 2007 0.27%
Prague 13 3,825 294.2 Created 2006 by now-inactive editor. Rebuilt by TTH as outline. 0.34%
Shenzen 13 3,097 238.2 Also note that vandalism went unnoticed. 0.42%
Jerusalem 12 5,434 452.8 0.22%
Montreal 12 5,126 427.2 0.23%
Las Vegas 12 4,574 381.2 0.26%
Miami 12 3,771 314.3 Author inactive since 2010 0.32%
Milan 9 2,926 325.1 Created 2010 by now-inactive editor. Rebuilt by TTH as outline. 0.31%
Baltimore 9 2,892 321.3 Created by short-time editor in 2013. Kept in 2018 after rework. 0.31%
Syracuse, New York 9 1,227 136.3 Author inactive since 2014 0.73%
Venice 8 3,900 487.5 0.21%
Bristol 8 2,314 289.3 Editor still active 0.35%
Louisville 8 1,902 237.8 Author edits a few times a year 0.42%
Budapest 7 3,805 543.6 0.18%
Seoul 7 3,016 430.9 0.23%
Turin 7 1,739 248.4 Built by TTH as outline. 0.40%
Quebec City 7 1,703 243.3 0.41%
Tirana 7 879 125.6 Author inactive since 2016 0.80%
Barcelona 6 4,925 820.8 Median is 3. Weird peak on 12 Feb. Built by Cote d'Azur as outline. 0.12%
Saint Petersburg 6 4,144 690.7 Median is 4. Weird peak in portal access on 18 and 19 Jan. 0.14%
Saint Petersburg 6 4,144 690.7 Median is 4. Weird peak in portal access on 18 and 19 Jan. 0.14%
Brighton 6 1,635 272.5 Author inactive since 2009 0.37%
Dresden 6 1,438 239.7 Automated from outline 0.42%
Kochi 6 1,195 199.2 Author inactive since 2018 0.50%
St. John's, Newfoundland 6 1,022 170.3 Editor still active 0.59%
Erie 6 584 97.3 Author inactive since 2009 1.03%
Cordoba, Argentina 6 421 70.2 1.43%
Cordoba, Argentina 6 421 70.2 1.43%
Nishapur 6 204 34.0 2.94%
Jhelum 6 163 27.2 Author blocked as a sockpuppet 3.68%
Rio de Janeiro 4 2,555 638.8 Built by Cote d'Azur as outline. 0.16%
Munich 3 3,059 1019.7 Built in 2007 then bypassed. Rebuilt by TTH as outline. 0.10%
Stockholm 3 2,550 850.0 Built by TTH as outline. 0.12%
Seljuk Empire 2 1,366 683.0 Article views are for two related articles. 0.15%
Faisalbad 2 442 221.0 0.45%
Palermo 1 1,001 1001.0 79 total pageviews for portal 0.10%

What can be seen is that portals have less than 1% of the daily pageviews of the head article for the city, with a few exceptions for small cities. Big city portals do not attract interested readers to nearly the degree that big city articles do. We have also seen that big city portals that do not attract large numbers of interested readers also do not attract portal maintainers.

Portal:Rome has 45 daily pageviews, which is the second highest of any city portal that I have examined so far. However, it does not have a portal maintainer. A portal that has been without a portal maintainer for a period of years is a portal that is not attracting a portal maintainer and is not likely to attract a portal maintainer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, @ Robert, that must have taken a lot of work! But thank you very much for taking the time to do it.
I was most struck by the result of sorting by portal pageviews. Only 4 city portals (New York, London, Rome, Tokyo) exceed 20 pageviews per day. For comparison I checked the pageviews for a few Irish small towns, which in other European countries would be classed as villages: Dunmanway, Mohill, Easky, Portumna, Stradbally: and those five averaged just under 20 hits per day.
So only the portals some 4 of the most renowned world cities exceed the viewing rates for an Irish small town. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of Rome and City PortalsEdit
add your keep/delete/comment here
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creating a portal when a portal maintainer is available. If a portal maintainer volunteers while this MFD is open, I will change my !vote, probably to Neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: in theory broad enough, in practice it isn't. To make it broad enough, and to fulfil its reason for existing, a portal maintainer is required. Therefore, delete without prejudice to curated recreation. Hail Caesar! Wait... SITH (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Aronno93Edit

User:Aronno93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a valid user. Only created this page to place his photo, no edits here or commons since 2015 Gbawden (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22, 2019Edit

Portal:2010sEdit

Portal:2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello everyone, and please take this journey with me as we learn the history of P:2010s.

On 2 April 2012, WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) created this treasure of a portal. I it had to do with the of its.

Either way, we now had a portal with about two years worth of content. P:2010s would languish from that point onwards until 2016 when a plunky young editor came to maintain it. According to Redolta's userpage (the maintainer), he is no longer able to edit Wikipedia, but still lists it among the three portals he updated (including Portal:Grand Canyon and P:2000s). With his last edit to the portal on 26 November 2017, it once again fell into disrepair.

Post-TTH, what does P:2010s look like? Well, for page views it is doing well. It's in the top-50.

Well, for subpages it's doing fine there, too. There is at least 29 selected pictures, 8 articles, 2 quotes 7 DYKs, 1 anniversary month, and 6 biographies.

So why do I think it is worth deleting? That answer comes from what Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

Nothing binds these subjects together other than a loosely-associated decade. I suppose it makes sense to some to put Václav Havel in the same list as Lady Gaga, Kim Jong-un, and Malala Yousafzai (whom are all still alive-- Havel seems to have been selected based on his date of death landing in this decade).

One could make an arguement that the selected articles (with one exception) make a lot more sense, but really though? The War on Women belongs on the same list as the European debt crisis or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster? Is that particularly useful to any reader?

Furthermore, the head article is rated start-class at the moment by WikiProject Years. The related portals section is also abysmal (includes things nothing clearly explained as related to P:2010s such as Portal:Fashion and Portal:Sexuality... which is odd to say the least.)

With no mainter, an unclear scope, and a state of disrepair...

I therefore recommend we simply, Delete the portal and its subpages*.MJLTalk 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Important Comment. I will note that Portal:2010s/Intro should not be deleted as it was merged into 2010s on 09 July 2018.MJLTalk 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. @MJL, why nominate only 2010s? Is there some particular issue with Portal:2010s which doesn't apply to the other decade portals? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: It suffers the most from recentism. However, primarily I was just being cautious with the nomination. –MJLTalk 22:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This portal has 116 average daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Can the nominator or someone else explain why this portal, with an exceptionally high rate of pageviews, should be deleted? Is it spreading lies? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - As the (former) maintainer of the portal, I believe that the portal could grow so much more than where it is currently at. Although it is true that the portal has fell into disrepair after my latest edit, it is only a matter of a few edits for the portal to be in better condition. For instance, articles that don't necessarily "fit in" with other selected articles can be replaced with more relevant topics from the decade, such as Hurricane Maria, the 2018 FIFA World Cup, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, or the Nintendo Switch. Furthermore, the scope of the portal is to branch out and connect major topics/points from the 2010s into one portal. With this logic that the scope is unclear, should we delete the 2000s portal as well? The 1990s portal? 80s? 70s? Finally, as mentioned, the 2010s portal has a decent amount of daily views. In fact, it has more average daily views than any other decade with their respective portals, so deleting this portal could cause a "domino effect" of killing off other decade portals as well or even portals with smaller view counts. All in all, I believe that the 2010s portal should not be deleted, because the portal is still quite relevant (it has a decent amount of average daily views), and the portal needs just a bit of tweaks to get it back to normal standards, not a full-scale deletion. I'm sure that many people (myself included) would be very upset to see many hours of editing dedicated to this (top-50) portal wasted by a deletion. Good day. Redolta📱 Contribs 05:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is unmaiantained crap, which should ideally be speedy deleted.
I looked at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:2010s, and checked Portal:2010s/Selected article/1 through to /5: every one of them is an unsourced content fork created in 2012, and no significant change since then. See the histories of /1, /2, /3, /4 and /5.
Worse still, look at the biographies. See the histories of biog/1, biog/2, biog/3, biog/4, biog/5, biog/6. All except /5 (Vaclav Havel) is a BLP, but each was created in 2012 and has hardly been touched since. The neglect is obvious, e.g.
It is abundantly clear that nobody has checked this portal in years for even the most basic, simple errors in BLPs. Just get rid of this junk ASAP: kill it with fire.
Redolta's response above is clear evidence of why this portal doesn't work.
Redolta notes that the portal has fell into disrepair, and that selected articles can be replaced etc. That's all theoretical. Yes, we could have a wonderful portal on nearly any topic if editors worked hard to build and maintain it. But this is just one of many portals which is not being maintained to a high enough standard to keep it on-topic and up-to-date.
The first para of WP:POG says "Portals which require manual updating are at a greater risk of nomination for deletion if they are not kept up to date. Do not expect other editors to maintain a portal you create."
When this portal was created in April 2012, that section of POG made the same point: "Do not create a portal if you do not intend to assist in its regular maintenance."
Redolta's last portal-space edit[62] was 18 months ago, in late 2017.
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so Redolta and every other is fully entitled to edit whenever and wherever they like, and to move onto other things if they prefer. But the portal has to be maintained, and if it is not being maintained, it should not be on display. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment: If the lead of the article was automatically transcluded into the portal selection, rather than a maintainer manually updating the description at the portal each time a significant change happened, I think this would cut down on a lot of the maintenance issues. I strongly think leads should be automatically transcluded - much fewer maintenance headaches, and I just don't see why it would need to be any different. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example of a portal transcluding the lead: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Connecticut/Selected_article/1&oldid=prev&diff=898449214&diffmode=source - I think this step would make it much, much, much easier to maintain portals. Also I just dealt with Aung San: Portal:2010s/Selected biography/1 ... and I dealt with the other articles cited in BrownHairedGirl's post. They all automatically transclude now. In fact Template:Transclude lead excerpt was written with portals in mind. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: As you know, I just tested it out at Portal:Connecticut/Selected article. However, it did not work as well as you may think. Whereas before the leads were all of consistent size by design, now I have to fiddle with each one to get it to the right size. In the case of Ellington, Connecticut, it did not work at all the way I hoped. Further, {{Transclude lead excerpt}} was designed to replace the /Intro subpage as that would be the most visible. It works less well for selected article subpages because changes to the transcluded article (most especially page moves) will now potentially break the selected content. I think I am going to keep this new system for the selected articles on Portal:Connecticut, but it is not much of a timesaver and requires regular monitoring/adjustments. –MJLTalk 17:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL, all portals require regular maintenance. That's why most of them are so dire, because editors like building them but doesn't enjoy the drudgery of ongoing monitoring them. The changing of this one to transclusion reduces the need for monitoring, but does not remove it.
Also @WhisperToMe, what you did to Portal:2010s/Selected biography/1 is a half-way house which still leaves the forest of sub-pages in place. It is much much better to get of the sub-pages and instead use {{Transclude random excerpt}} in portal page itself, with a list of topics. That allows the portal to be monitored by just watchlisting the main portal page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I updated Template:Transclude lead excerpt/doc so people know that template exists too! @MJL: seems like Template:Transclude random excerpt transcludes the lead regardless of how big it is. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe & @MJL: don't forget that the whole business of using portals to display previews of the lead of an article is now redundant, because it is all built into the standard Wikipedia software. For an explanation, see e.f. MFD:Portal:Rice.
So by whatever method you create these preview boxes, you're creating something which adds no value for readers. Before ling it will be deprecated; it is just a matter of when someone gets around to opening an RFC on it. It's sad to see editors spending time building something which is redundant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - My question was answered. I asked whether it is spreading lies. Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: unmaintained, selection is puzzling per BHG's analysis, I wonder whether it's too broad. SITH (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ReggaeEdit

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

Mini-portal about reggae music.Abandoned since 2014.

Created[63] in May 2012‎ by Yungtravie (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked since 2017.

It was still in Category:Portals under construction in September 2018, whe it was converted[64] ‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to an automated format which drew its selected artricles list solely from the navbox Template:Reggae, of which the portal therefire became just a bloated a nd edundnat 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).

On 12 May 2019‎ I reverted the automation, restoring the last curated version.

That leaves it still "under construction", 7 years after it was created. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Reggae shows a modest 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 portal has missed over 60 consecutive updates. Yes, there are three selected article, but that's a tiny selection, and two of the three selected articles are already linked from the navbox and from the lead or infobox of the head article: Portal:Reggae/Selected article/1 is Rastafari, and Portal:Reggae/Selected article/2 is dub music.

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".But it has consistently failed to attract 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 Reggae and its navbox Template:Reggae.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Reggae
  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 Reggae.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Reggae with its navbox {{Reggae}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Also, portal not maintained since portal author blocked for copyvio. Also, this portal had 74 pageviews between 1 Jan 2019 and 28 Feb 2019. That's not an average; that's a sum. The average is 1. (The article had 1413 daily pageviews, but you didn't ask that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: unmaintained portals do not fulfil their reason for existing, and navbox clones are redundant forks. Therefore, no portal is better. SITH (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Analytical chemistryEdit

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

Delete This is an abandoned micro portal (one article, one image, one biography) that can be more than adequately covered in Portal:Chemistry. The portal has no "enhanced main page" features: no news, no DYK, no links to featured content, no links to collaboration areas. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - DYK and ITN functionality are optional in portals. Multiple articles are not optional. This portal is a static display. In aviation, a static display is an airplane that will not fly; an aviation static display can be either a museum piece or a military symbol. We don't have a portal museum. This portal has 12 daily page views. Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still-born and abandoned. 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 Analytical chemistry with its navbox Template:Analytical chemistry. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned portal, scope too narrow, can be covered by Portal:Chemistry and {{Analytical chemistry}}. SITH (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:DragonlanceEdit

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

Delete. User:MJL re-redirected this abandoned portal to the tangentially related Portal:Dungeons & Dragons per WP:WOOD, but that sweeps under the rug any dealing with this portal's 102 thusly-unused subpages, so I reversed the re-redirection, and here we are. I believe this franchise (like all franchises) does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement of the WP:POG guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was more-so restoring the redirect created by Legacypac. Tbh, WP:WOOD is just one of my favorite essays, so it doesn't take much for me to invoke it. Regardless, I wasn't aware it had that many subpages. –MJLTalk 19:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete.. 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".
@MJL, I strongly object to the use of WP:WOOD for this purpose. It's just an essay, and it's all about articles on topics which may become notable in the future. It's wholly inappropriate to use it for portals. Please revert any portals which you have redirected in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: The only other portal I explicitly invoked it for was Portal:Munich which I then did an about-face on and nominated it for deletion. Portal:Racism is currently a redirect as well, but I gave a decently specific edit summary as to why that one was turned into one. No subpages and no edits since. It has a few mainspace links, but my belief was that a redirect is appropriate in this scenario. I'd be willing to revert if necessary, but no one has since asked me to do so. –MJLTalk 20:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur with User:BrownHairedGirl in taking strong exception to the arbitrary misuse of redirect in this fashion, but this should be discussed somewhere else, maybe at User talk:MJL. This portal has 11 average daily pageviews, which is more than I would have expected, compared to 547 daily pageviews for the article. I concur that this does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirement, but breadth-of-subject-matter must be assessed a posteriori. Efforts to determine a priori that a subject is a broad subject area are simply an excuse for creating portals that no one wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per usual issues. I think MJL was acting in good faith in redirecting it, let's not assume the worst. SITH (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SeoulEdit

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

Micro-portal about the city of Seoul in Korea. Abandoned since 2009, redundant to the head article Seoul.

Created[66] in January 2009‎ by Article editor (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blockd since 2016.

It escaped the 2018 wave of automation, but Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Seoul shows only a small list 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 120 consecutive updates.

In theory, this large capital a broad topic. But in practice, like most city portals outside the USA, 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 Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 7 pageviews per day, which is less than half the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, but still only 0.23% of the 3,016 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Seoul and its excellent sidebar navbox Template:Seoul.

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

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

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Seoul.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: we can have an abandoned manual portal, which fails WP:PORTAL, we can have an automated navbox clone, which fails WP:REDUNDANTFORK, or we can delete it. SITH (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:MunichEdit

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

This portal was created on 23 March 2007‎ by a Kingjeff (talk · contribs). After a two-year abandonment, it was nominated for deletion by B. That nomination closed with no consensus. Agathoclea made it into a redirect to Portal:Bavaria with a commitment to continue working on the portal.

Fast forward 10 years later, and here we are. TTH began the process of automating it (13 July 2018‎). As with other related nominations today, it was made to select content from Outline of Munich.

I temporarily restored the redirect per WP:WOOD, but that did not sit well with me. The previous MfD included a statement by Tikiwont that this could be revisited later. I figured now is as good of a time as any.

This portal has sat abandoned for nearly ten years. No maintainers have come forward in that time, but I leave open the possibility future maintainers may be found as this sizeable city certainly meets WP:POG.
I therefore propose this portal be deleted without prejudice to its recreation at a later date following whatever future consensus may be in place for portal content.MJLTalk 16:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The re-creation in 2019 by TTH just made it an automated clone of Outline of Munich, which is redundant for the reasons which I set out in WP:Miscellany for deletion/City portals cloned from outline pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with analysis by MJL and by BHG. Portal has 3 average daily pageviews, as opposed to 3059 for city article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just found this portion of WP:WPPORT's newsletters, and I figured I should share it.

Getting faster

Automation makes things go faster, even portal creation. One of the components Certes made was {{Transclude list item excerpt}}. I became curious about its possible applications.

So I worked out a portal design using it, the initial prototypes being Portal:Kyoto (without a "Selected pictures" section), and Portal:Dubai (with a "Selected pictures" section). Then I used Portal:Dubai as the basis for further portals of this type...

I was able to revamp Portal:Munich from start to finish in less than 22 minutes.
Portal:Dresden took about 19 minutes.
Portal:Athens took less than 17 minutes.
Did Portal:Florence in about 13 minutes.
Portal:Stockholm also in about 13.
Portal:Palermo approx. 12 minutes.

Why?

To see, and to show, what may become feasible via automation.

It now looks highly feasible that we could get portal construction time down to a few minutes, or maybe even down to a few seconds.

The singularity is just around the corner. :)

In case anyone was curious how long it took to make these types of portals (or even why some were made). –MJLTalk 18:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BeijingEdit

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

Abandoned mini-portal on Beijing, the capital of China. A selection of pictures, but no list of articles and no rotation of content.

Created[69] in October 2012‎ WhisperToMe (talk · contribs).

Converted[70] in September 2018‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH) to an automated clone of the navbox Template:Beijing. 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 April 2019, it was reverted[71] to a non-automated format.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Beijing looks healthy at first glance, but most of the content pages are empty:

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.

In theory, Beijing is a broad topic. Big capital city of huge country, very long history, good coverage. 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 Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 15 pageviews per day, slightly more than the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, but still under 0.4% of the 3,754 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Beijing and its navbox Template:Beijing.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Beijing.
  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 Beijing.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Beijing with its navbox {{Beijing}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As per analysis by BHG. But even if someone finds a way to make a better portal, will the interested readers come? They don't come to any city portal, yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: portals require maintenance, if a topic doesn't attract maintainers then either it's too narrow or people just aren't interested in portals anymore. SITH (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ShenzhenEdit

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

Static mini-portal on the Chinese city of Shenzhen. Abandoned since 2016, with no list of topics, and no rotation of topics ... and for the last two years, it gave pride of place to a "selected article" about a suburb in England.

Created[72] in February 2016‎ by Wishva de Silva (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Shenzhen 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 40 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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 13 pageviews per day, which is right at the median of 13 per day for all portals, but only 0.4% of the 3,097 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Shenzhen and its navbox Template:Shenzhen.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Shenzhen.
  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 Shenzhen.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Shenzhen with its navbox {{Shenzhen}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 15:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis by BHG, and as per observation that big city portals do not attract large numbers of interested readers, and especially noting that vandalism went unnoticed for an extended period. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PORTAL's maintenance requirement. SITH (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:VeniceEdit

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

Static mini-portal on the city of Venice. Abandoned since 2010, with no list of topics, and no rotation of topics.

Created[77] in January 2010‎ by Theologiae (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in 2013.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Venice shows only a few 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 110 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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 8 pageviews per day, which is little over half the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, but still only 0.21% of the 3,900 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Venice.

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Venice
  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 Venice, nad then click on any image.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Venice.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 14:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis by BHG, and noting that big city portals do not attract large numbers of interested readers. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I really love Venice, I like the idea of portals, but this is just poorly executed due to lack of maintenance. SITH (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Seljuk EmpireEdit

Portal:Seljuk Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Micro stillborn portal (5 articles only) on an empire that does not meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline. Because none of the other components were ever created, they all show as redlinks on the portal. No dedicated WikiProject to support it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Narrow topic, and it never even got to the stage of a working first draft.
Note that in Feb 2019, it was converted[81] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) into an automated clone of the navbox Template:Seljuk dynasty. On 14 May, I reverted[82] to the last non-automated version. I should have MFded it straight away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Portal averages 2 pageviews per day, which are probably of editors seeing that the portal is broken as described above. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: abandoned portal / redundant fork / deletion. Only the third is within policy and guidelines. SITH (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

City portals cloned from outline pagesEdit

Portal:Barcelona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Milan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Prague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Rio de Janeiro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Stockholm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Turin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Each of these six automated portals builds its lists of "selected articles" previews solely from an article called "Outline of <cityname>", of which it is therefore a redundant clone. That is because each outline page already has the preview facility built-in, make a specialised page of previews redundant. For more details of the built-in functions, see below.

As an example of how the outline pages are used in these portals, see this code for the "Selected area article" selection of Portal:Prague:

{{Box-header colour | Selected area article | color=Gold | mode=light }}
{{Transclude list item excerpt | 1=Outline of Prague | section= Areas of Prague | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | fileargs= | more= | errors= }}
{{Box-footer}}

Two of these portals (P:Milan & P:Prague) previously existed as old-style manual portals with sub-pages. In both cases, the old portal offered no selection or rotation or list of topics; each was just a static display. The righthand column table below links to the set of sub-pages.

The other four portals were have no non-automated version.

Portal Head article Outline page Created Creator Last curated version
(if it exists)
Sub-pages
(italicised if empty)
Portal:Barcelona Barcelona Outline of Barcelona 18 July 2018‎ Cote d'Azur (talk · contribs) Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Barcelona
Portal:Milan Milan Outline of Milan 31 March 2010 Theologiae (talk · contribs) 9 July 2018 Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Milan
Portal:Prague Prague Outline of Prague 3 January 2006 Adam s (talk · contribs) 12 July 2018 Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Prague
Portal:Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro Outline of Rio de Janeiro 26 July 2018‎ Cote d'Azur (talk · contribs) Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Rio de Janeiro
Portal:Stockholm Stockholm Outline of Stockholm 14 July 2018‎ The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Stockholm
Portal:Turin Turin Outline of Turin 14 July 2018‎ The Transhumanist (talk · contribs) Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Turin

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

  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links.
    Try it by right-clicking on this link to any of the outline pages linked above, e.g. Outline of Barcelona
  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, and it includes the captions used in in the article.
    Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Barcelona, or any of the other articles above, and then click on any image to start the slideshow.

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

These are all major cities, which in theory should be capable of meeeting 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, these redundant portals add no value for the reader.

Note that in recent weeks, at least ten other portals cloned from outline pages have been deleted at MFD: MFD:Portal:Cairo, MFD:Portal:Law enforcement, MFD:7 pseudo-portal forks of outline pages, MFD:Portal:Classical architecture.

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) 09:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Outline-Based City Portals (and of City Portals)Edit
add your keep/delete/comment here

I concur with the analysis above by User:BrownHairedGirl and will comment in general on portals for big cities. The argument has been made too many times recently that a big city or a capital city is a broad subject area. What the portal guidelines state is that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of readers and portal maintainers. The problem is that portals about big cities do not attract large numbers of readers. As noted, all six of the cities in question are large cities. Two are currently national capitals. The other four are state capitals. One was a national capital in the twentieth century, and one is a past national capital with a nationalist movement. The following table shows average daily pageviews in the baseline period of 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2019 for the portal and for the head article. For comparison, I have also included the city that has the most populous metropolitan area in the world, Tokyo.

Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
Barcelona 6 4925 820.8 Median is 3. Weird peak on 12 Feb. Built by Cote d'Azur as outline. 0.12%
Milan 9 2,926 325.1 Created 2010 by now-inactive editor. Rebuilt by TTH as outline. 0.31%
Prague 13 3,825 294.2 Created 2006 by now-inactive editor. Rebuilt by TTH as outline. 0.34%
Rio de Janeiro 4 2,555 638.8 Built by Cote d'Azur as outline. 0.16%
Stockholm 3 2,550 850.0 Built by TTH as outline. 0.12%
Turin 7 1,739 248.4 Built by TTH as outline. 0.40%
Tokyo 28 6,486 231.6 Appears to be maintained. Articles are for sum of city and metro area. 0.43%

As can be seen, portals for big cities do not attract large numbers of readers, and they attract less than one percent as many readers as do the articles about the cities. We should abandon the idea that big cities are the sort of broad subject areas whose portals will attract large numbers of readers. We also should delete big-city portals that are based only on outlines. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just found this portion of WP:WPPORT's newsletters, and I figured I should share it.

Getting faster

Automation makes things go faster, even portal creation. One of the components Certes made was {{Transclude list item excerpt}}. I became curious about its possible applications.

So I worked out a portal design using it, the initial prototypes being Portal:Kyoto (without a "Selected pictures" section), and Portal:Dubai (with a "Selected pictures" section). Then I used Portal:Dubai as the basis for further portals of this type...

I was able to revamp Portal:Munich from start to finish in less than 22 minutes.
Portal:Dresden took about 19 minutes.
Portal:Athens took less than 17 minutes.
Did Portal:Florence in about 13 minutes.
Portal:Stockholm also in about 13.
Portal:Palermo approx. 12 minutes.

Why?

To see, and to show, what may become feasible via automation.

It now looks highly feasible that we could get portal construction time down to a few minutes, or maybe even down to a few seconds.

The singularity is just around the corner. :)

In case anyone was curious how long it took to make these types of portals (or even why some were made). –MJLTalk 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and MJL's analysis. Abandoned portals, automated portals, and navbox clones are of no use to Wikipedia's readers. SITH (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

User:FBI9225/sandboxEdit

User:FBI9225/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User hasn't edited since Jan 2017, so not a valid user. Page only created to store his photos Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - Still a valid user, who made a few edits. No policy cited why photos should be deleted or blanked. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh: if you're an active user or have been an active user, you can have a photo on your userpage. Was this guy active? Sort of. It's not a WP:NOTWEBHOST issue, it's two photos with no context, so unless his Dropbox is really full, I doubt he's using it as a photo dump. Bottom line: don't care either way. SITH (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:BudapestEdit

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

Mini-portal on the city of Budapest. Abandoned since 2006 with no list of topics and no rotation of content.

Created[83] in July 2006‎ by Tylop~enwiki (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2008.

The list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Budapest is short, and the content pages are massively outdated:

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.

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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 7 pageviews per day, which is less than half the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still only 0.18% of the 3,805 daily views of the head article Budapest. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Budapest and its excellent navbox Template:Budapest.

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

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

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Budapest with its navbox {{Budapest}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 07:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with analysis by BHG. Portal has less than 0.2% of views of article, which might imply that creating a new portal may be a waste of human time. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

May 21, 2019Edit

Portal:ChristadelphianEdit

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

Static mini-portal on the Christadelphians. Abandoned since 2008.

This is a very narrow topic. There are only about 50,000 Christadelphians worldwide.

Category:Christadelphianism and all its subcats contain only 49 unique articles in total, of which 18 and stubs and 22 are start-class. The leaves only 9 articles of C-class or higher, which is far too small a set for a portal.

The portal was created[88] in April 2008‎ Woofboy (talk · contribs), who appeasr to still edit occasionally. However Woofboy's last portalspace edits were in 2014.[89]

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Christadelphian shows a small, one-of-each set:

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this adds little value (if any) to the head article Christadelphians and its sdebar Template:Christadelphians.

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:Christadelphians.
  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 Christadelphians, or any of the othjer articles above.

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

Given those technical developments and the extreme narrowness of the topic, it is very unlikely that any portal on this topic would add value for readers. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with the analysis by BHG. This portal had an average of 6 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete not opposed to portals on large religious denominations, but this one is too small and the coverage on Wikipedia isn't sufficiently well developed. Hut 8.5 06:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to the article and its links. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:PalermoEdit

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

Automated clone portal, which is simply a wrapper around the relevant sections of the article Outline of Palermo.

Created[91] in July 2018 by @The Transhumanist (TTH). There is no non-automated version to revert to.

Each box in the portal draws its article list solely from the relevant section of Outline of Palermo For example the box labelled "Selected arts articles" is built with this code:

{{Box-header/31|Selected arts article}}
{{Transclude list item excerpt | 1=Outline of Palermo | section= Arts in Palermo | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | fileargs= | more= | errors= }}
{{Box-footer}}

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. Outline of Palermo
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Palermo.

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).

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) 21:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I just found this portion of WP:WPPORT's newsletters, and I figured I should share it.

Getting faster

Automation makes things go faster, even portal creation. One of the components Certes made was {{Transclude list item excerpt}}. I became curious about its possible applications.

So I worked out a portal design using it, the initial prototypes being Portal:Kyoto (without a "Selected pictures" section), and Portal:Dubai (with a "Selected pictures" section). Then I used Portal:Dubai as the basis for further portals of this type...

I was able to revamp Portal:Munich from start to finish in less than 22 minutes.
Portal:Dresden took about 19 minutes.
Portal:Athens took less than 17 minutes.
Did Portal:Florence in about 13 minutes.
Portal:Stockholm also in about 13.
Portal:Palermo approx. 12 minutes.

Why?

To see, and to show, what may become feasible via automation.

It now looks highly feasible that we could get portal construction time down to a few minutes, or maybe even down to a few seconds.

The singularity is just around the corner. :)

In case anyone was curious how long it took to make these types of portals (or even why some were made). –MJLTalk 18:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Railways in PakistanEdit

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

Abandoned mini-portal, redundant to the head article Pakistan Railways and its navbox Template:Pakistan Railways.

Created[92] in June 2018‎ by Altitude.pk (talk · contribs), whose has made a total of 56 edits, all in 7 days in June 2016, nearly all of them to this portal.

This an old-style portal with sub-pages. The list at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Railways in Pakistan shows a modest set of pages:

  • 2 Selected articles
  • 1 Selected bridge or tunnel
  • 1 Selected photo
  • 2 Selected routes
  • 1 Selected station

So there is almost no rotation of content. And the route pages Portal:Railways in Pakistan/Selected route/1 & Portal:Railways in Pakistan/Selected route/2 don't even have a link to the head article. The Selected photo is unused, because the portal takes its list of images from 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 Pakistan Railways and its navbox Template:Pakistan Railways.

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

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

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

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 could in theory be viewed as a broad topic. But in practice it has not attracted maintainers, and in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day, compared with 422 viees per day for the head aricle Pakistan Railways.

It is theoretically possible to build a portal which would actually add value for readers, and theoretically possible that they might pay attention to the first para of WP:POG which asks editors not to create a portals unless they are willing to maintain it. And it's also theoretically possible that such a portal might have editors who do the ongoing work of maintaining it. But meanwhile, this unfinished portals just wastes the time of readers.

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) 21:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, concurring with analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all Redundant to the article and its links. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:FaisalabadEdit

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

Mini-portal on the city of Faisalabad in Pakistan, abandoned since creation in 2009.

Created[93] in July 2009‎ by Talha (talk · contribs), who last edited in Jan 2019, but has has made only 5 edits since July 2014.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Faisalabad shows a modest set of subpages, with only 3 selected articles and 5 selected pictures. However, closer scrutiny shows that:

The result is a portal which falls a very long way short of the principle set out at WP:PORTAL: that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Faisalabad.

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 then 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:Faisalabad 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 Faisalabad, or any of the othjer articles above.

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

With a 2017 population of 3.2 million, Faisalabad may appear in theory 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 never attracted any maintainers, not even its creator (whose last portalspace edit was in September 2010[94], and whos elast edit to this portasl was in August 2009). And it also hasn't attracted viewers: in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 2 pageviews per day, barely above the background noise of editors viewing the page, and only one seventh of the abysmal median of 13 views/day for all portals. The head article Faisalabad got 442 daily pageviews in the same period, more than 200 times as many as the potal.

I suppose that there is always some remote possibility that someday some editor will put in the hard work needed to create a portal which genuinely adds value for the reader, and that a group of editors will mainatin it.

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 I would not object to outright deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl. For the benefit of those who, with or without thinking first, say that a big city is necessarily a "broad subject area" that will attract viewers and portal maintainers, I offer a comparison of portal views and article views for New York City, London (including Greater London), and Faisalabad.
Title Portal Page Views Article Page Views Ratio Notes Percent
New York City 82 17,169 209.4 0.48%
London 37 15,016 405.8 Sum of two articles 0.25%
Faisalabad 2 442 221.0 0.45%

A portal has less than 1% of the pageviews of the article. Even the most viewed city portal that I have examined (which so far is Portal:New York City) has less than 100 daily pageviews, and town articles get more than 100 daily pageviews. There is really very little demand or need for portals for cities. This is a three-template automated portal, and we already have consensus that fully automated portals are nothing but content forks of the pages (templates, lists, outlines) on which they are based. If someone wants to put in the labor-intensive effort of setting up a new Portal:Faisalabad, Deletion Review is thisaway. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete all Redundant to the article and its links. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Indigenous peoples of AustraliaEdit

Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned, static portal. Tedundant to the head articles Indigenous Australians and Indigenous peoples of Australia.

Created[95] in July 2017‎ by Wasechun tashunka (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2017.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia shows that the intention was to create a separate sub-page for each month of each year, but the plan was soon abandoned, as often happens with such ambitious plans for portals:

So instead, the current version of the portal just displays Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia/Featured article/Month 8, 2017 under the heading Month {{CURRENTMONTH}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}. So whatever the month, it will display the same topic, falsely claiming that it has been chosen for that month.

The picture section does the same thing, always display the same topic, always showing Portal:Indigenous peoples of Australia/Featured picture/Month 8, 2017 while falsely claiming that it has been chosen for that month.

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.

In theory, this could be defined as 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". But in practice it has consistently failed to attract maintainers In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 7 pageviews per day, which is barely half the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals. The head article Indigenous Australians gets 2,512 views/day and Indigenous peoples of Australia gets only 85 views/day.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this abandoned, static page is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Indigenous Australians and its excellent navbox Template:Indigenous Australians.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Indigenous Australians
  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 Indigenous Australians.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Indigenous Australians with its sidebar {{Indigenous Australians}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 19:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As per the analysis and metrics by BHG. The pageviews for the portal are 0.27% of the pageviews for the two head articles, which is not unusual. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete It's pretty but is unmaintainable. The treatment is not what is expected at an encyclopedic article and it should not be a fork of that article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CorruptionEdit

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

Delete Single-page automated portal on a subject that can be completely covered in Portal:Crime. Draws its selected articles from 3 templates: Template:Corruption, Template:Political corruption, and Template:Sports Corruption Scandals, so is a redundant fork of them. As is standard for singe page portals, images are frequently presented without context or explanation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with analysis by nominator. Very recent creation, one of last in wave of reckless portal creation by portal platoon. Portal has 4 daily pageviews in Mar-Apr 2019 timeframe; head article has 1687 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another redundant, automated navbox-clone, like thousands of other clones already deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: automated navbox clone. SITH (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CosmologyEdit

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

Delete Abandoned mini-portal (6 articles, 4 scientists) that falls completely within the scope of Portal:Astronomy (note the WikiProject structure: Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Cosmology Task Force) and that therefore fails WP:POG's lack-of-redundancy requirement. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal was abandoned for an excessively common reason, that its author was blocked for sockpuppetry. The portal has 38 daily pageviews, which is not bad as portals go, but doesn't justify a portal, let alone a sock portal. The head article has 877 pageviews daily. As the nominator says, redundant to another portal (but reserving the right to !vote on the parent portal). Delete with prejudice and with dark energy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to the article and its links. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. A small, abandoned set of outdated content forks does not satisfy the core principle of 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 Cosmology, with its navbox Template:Cosmology topics and its sidebar Template:Physical cosmology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:KnittingEdit

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

Delete Abandoned mini-portal (3 articles, 4 pictures) on a subject that falls far short of the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-matter requirements. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete with prejudice with needles - This portal, with 7 average daily pageviews, is by an editor who has been inactive since 2018. The head article has 678 daily pageviews. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to the article and its links. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This mini-portal falls far short of the principle of WP:PORTAL that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Knitting and its navbox Template:Knitting.
Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navboxes offers all the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incognito window" (Chrome).
  1. mouseover: on any link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead. So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links. Try it by right-clicking on this link to Template:Knitting.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Knitting.
Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.
Wikipedia's core functionality has evolved a long way since this portal was created in 2007. An abandoned 12-year-old portal like this comes nowhere remotely near adding enough value for readers to justify its existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Information technologyEdit

Portal:Information technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Big broad topic, but an abandoned static portal. There is no list of topics, and neither rotation of content nor a slideshow.

Created[96] by Ausir (talk · contribs) in February 2005‎, 6 months before the portal namespace went live.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Information technology 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 160 updates in all.

WP:POG requires that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". This one has got the readers: in Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 160 pageviews per day, which is only 5.2% of the 3,048 daily views of the head article Information technology. Even so, those 160 daily pageviews for the portal ranks it at number 23 of 1157 in the list of daily pageviews day for all portals.

So insofar as readers want portals (which is basically not much) there is more demand for a portal on this topic than most other topics ... but this 14-year-old abandoned portal is just a waste of readers' time.

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is doesn't even enhance the surprisingly poor head article Information technology. Anyone wanting to assist readers in this area would do best to start by improving the head article and building a decent navbox. Maybe someone will do that, and then go on to build a portal which actually adds value, but any such effort would do much better to start afresh using newer techniques, rather than building on the foundations of 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) 17:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that this portal was discussed in 2008 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Information technology, where the nominator noted that it's never updated and has no active maintainers. Repeated requests for signs of life go unanswered.
The result of that discussion was "keep" ... but 11 years later, the same problems remain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was considered Weak Delete or Neutral based on the pageview metrics of 160 pageviews per day, which is very good for a portal. Then I saw the DYKs, which are like dinosaur sightings. (The technical humor is that large old computers occupying whole rooms are referred to as dinosaurs.) We can delete it, or we can perform an incantation to get Godot to come from Tashkent to maintain the portal. But a dinosaur might eat his camel. Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete In principle this topic has potential as a portal but my checking shows no substantive edits since 2014 or possibly earlier. It is unmaintainable and effort would be better directed to improving the articles. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Computer securityEdit

Portal:Computer security (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned, static mini-portal.

Created[98] in January 2007‎ by Jacroe (talk · contribs).

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Computer security confirs that there is no selection or rotation of of content, just static 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 hundreds of 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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got 56 pageviews per day, which is four times the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals, but still on;ly 2.7% of the 2,068 daily views of the head article. But it has consistently failed to attract 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 Computer security and its sidebar navbox Template:Computer security.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Computer security
  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 Computer security.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Computer security with its sidebar {{Computer security}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 15:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The metrics tell a different story than usual. This portal has 56 daily pageviews, both in 1 Jan 2019 - 28 Feb 2019, and in 1 Jan 2019 - 30 Apr 2019. That is higher than most portals. The head article has 2068 daily pageviews. But the portal isn't being maintained, by an originator who edits a few times a year. So the problem is that viewers may think that the portal is a way to learn about the subject. There is a way to use Wikipedia to learn about the subject. It is articles, links, categories, and articles. The portal is distracting the readers whom it does attract, because they may think that it is useful. This is a clear case where we should be open to a new portal if someone wants to develop one. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - The issue here is not Wikipedia and computer security, which needs to be improved with regard to the prevention and handling of compromised accounts. Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with hacking to gain unauthorized access to data, because in Wikipedia the malicious alteration of data is called vandalism and we have our own protocols for dealing with that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Internet Relay ChatEdit

Portal:Internet Relay Chat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned, static portal on a rapidly-declining internet protocol: Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

Created[103] in June 2010‎ by EdoDodo (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2011.

The list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Internet Relay Chat is sparse, and aged. There is only one of everything, so no rotation of content. Portal:Internet Relay Chat/Selected article/1 and Portal:Internet Relay Chat/Selected article/1 have not been edited since EdoDoDo created them in 2010.

Even the head article Internet Relay Chat looks moribund. Internet Relay Chat#Present_day is hazy about what's happened since 2012.

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.

I doubt that IRC ever qualified as a broad 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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 5 pageviews per day, which is less than half the abysmal median of 13 per day for all portals. And it has consistently failed to attract maintainers.

Those maintainers are unlikely to appear. Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC is marked as inactive, and the only posts on its talk page since 2017 it have been broadcast messages.

Best to just delete this. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - At first I thought when I saw this entry in the MFD TOC that it might have to do with the Help facility for Wikipedia that uses IRC in place of talk page discussion. (My opinion is that the quality of the advice given to authors of drafts via IRC is inconsistent. Some get good advice, and some get advice that they misunderstand, and, without a written record, there is no way that the author can be persuaded that they misunderstood. That isn't the fault of the advisor.) No. It's a portal, with 5 daily pageviews, as opposed to 1285 daily pageviews for the article. The portal certainly isn't helping new editors improve their drafts. Deleting it without prejudice is too generous, but I don't want to argue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I now noticed. User:BrownHairedGirl isn't being too generous, because she said 'just delete this'. If someone wants to re-create it, they know where Deletion Review is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep per now, wait for the discussion on the future of the portals stabilize. I believe that portal has a great potential in WP:PORTAL "Providing bridges between reading and editing, and between the encyclopedia proper and the Wikipedia community". If maintained, I propose to improve itGuilherme Burn (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah for goodness sake, @Guilherme Burn, "Providing bridges" etc is a laudable aim, but that's all subject to having a sufficient broad topic..
People can portals it for as long as they like, but this will remain a narrow topic: one dying internet protocol out of how many hundreds of protocols?
You may may be interested in doing some work on it now, it will need maintenance into the future even if you aren't around ... and with the WikiProject dead, where are those other maintainers going to come from? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even by Portal standards, this is a particularly weak one. Narrow topic that is simply an out-of-date and essentially abandoned cut-and-paste of the main article+navbox. As will all such situations, will only degrate the percieved quality of the main article+navbox in the eyes of the reader. Given that IRC is an old protocol, it is more important to focus our scarce editing resources on the main article+navbox than a portal that nobody seems to want to read. Britishfinance (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Which part of the community is this going to bridge to? The inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject IRC? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Chinese folk religionEdit

Portal:Chinese folk religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned, static portal. Created by a confirmed sockpuppet.

Created[104] in March 2014‎ Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked[105] ("AE") since June 2018 for sockpuppetry (see SPI).

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Chinese folk religion shows just a set of static pages, most of which have not been edited for 4 years.

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 non-portal has missed dozens of updates..

In theory, could be argued to 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", because it has consistently failed to attract 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 Chinese folk religion and its sidebar navbox Template:Chinese folk religion.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox offers all the functionality which simple 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:Confucianism
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Chinese folk religion.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Chinese folk religion with its sidebar {{Chinese folk religion}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 07:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete In addition to the cogent points above, the Portal has not been managed to coordinate with other areas, such as WT:CHINA.ch (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Yet another portal by a blocked or banned editor. This one has 17 average daily pageviews, and the article has 640 daily pageviews. We don't need little-used portals by blocked editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Central AsiaEdit

Portal:Central Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mini-portal on Central Asia, abandoned since 2014.

Created[106] in December 2011‎ by Jj98 (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2018.

Contains just two boxes: "selected images" and "selected articles". The "selected images" are in fact the full set of images used in the head article Central Asia, so this is redundant, because for ordinary readers who are not logged in, automatic imagery galleries are built into every article. 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 Central Asia.

The selected articles are drawn from the list at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Central Asia. Five pages are listed, but three of them are (and always have been) blank: Portal:Central Asia/Selected article/3, /4 and [Portal:Central Asia/Selected article/5|/5]].

The two which have content are:

This is all redundant to the head article, where those two topics are prominently listed in the TOC. There is no benefit in retaining these 5-year-old content forks.

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) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as per analysis by BHG. Only 11 daily average pageviews for portal as opposed to 1886 daily average pageviews for article. It should be noted that any future portal should avoid duplicating either the countries of Central Asia or Asia as a whole. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ShintoEdit

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

Static portal about the Shinto religion. Abandoned since 2005, apart from changes by a sockpuppet in 2014.

Created[107] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Shinto shows just a set of static pages, many of which were reworked in 2014 by Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked[108] ("AE") since June 2018 for sockpuppetry (see SPI)

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, and over 150 updates in all.

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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 18 pageviews per day, which is a little more than the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still under 0.5% of the 3,843 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Shinto and its sidebar navbox Template:Shinto.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Shinto
  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 Shinto.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Shinto with its sidebar {{Shinto}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 06:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As per the analysis and metrics provided by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Saint PetersburgEdit

Portal:Saint Petersburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Automated clone portal, which is simply a wrapper around the relevant sections of the article Outline of Saint Petersburg.

Created[114] in July 2018 by @The Transhumanist (TTH). There is no non-automated version to revert to.

Each box in the portal draws its article list solely from the relevant section of Outline of Saint Petersburg For example the bx lablled "Selected arts articles" is built with this code:

{{Box-header colour|Selected arts articles}}
{{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | 1=Outline of Saint Petersburg | section= Art in Saint Petersburg | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | fileargs= | more= | errors= }}

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. Outline of Saint Petersburg
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Saint Petersburg.

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).

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) 05:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion. This portal was previously discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals, a group nomination based on the Portal Projects's classification of the portals in Category:Bottom-importance Portal pages. That was withdrawn by the nominator on 24 March 2019, since most participants disputed the value of Portal Project's assessments.
This renomination is too allow discussion of the actual attributes of the portals, rather than of some disputed assessment.
Pinging the participants at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals: @A1d391kIw6E8Cu8T3G, Auric, Bagumba, Barkeep49, Espresso Addict, Juhachi, Knowledgekid87, Legacypac, Mr. Smart LION, OhanaUnited, Parsecboy, Prairieplant, Qwirkle, RobDuch, Robert McClenon, and Thryduulf:. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to participate since I closed the last discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not having success with the mouseover feature, so I do not grasp what it does in practice. I use Firefox and thought I selected the correct option, to save in a new private window. But it was just the same as opening it without that feature. Mouseover (running the cursor over the images) made nothing new happen. I am on a laptop using Windows 10 if that matters. Would I see this feature on an Apple phone? But I am always logged in on the phone, too. I think I might understand this discussion better if I understood these new features that will organize a topic the way a portal does now. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Prairieplant, you need to "Open link in new private window". Then mouseover any links to see preview, or click on any image to get the sldeshow. Just tested it in the latest Firefox 66.03, and it works fine. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I haven't seen the new features either, which I understand are available to logged-out users. They are not the main reason to delete unused portals. This portal was developed toward the end of a wave of reckless portal creation by the portal platoon, and was meant to be unmaintained. It has an arithmetic mean of 6 daily pageviews during the 1 Jan - 28 Feb 2019 period. (That figure is inflated by a weird peak probably due to the portal platoon looking at the portal, and the median is 4, but that doesn't matter.) Advocates of portals for big cities will say that this is a big city, and a portal is in order. We can see that portals for big cities are not used. There were an average of 4,144 daily pageviews of the article. Big cities don't need portals. Does someone want to manage a labor-intensive miniature Main Page on this city? If so, this MFD is without prejudice. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ContinentsEdit

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

Another drive-by navbox-cloned portal, created[115] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) in September 2018.

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

The technique is similar to manny fake-curated portals I have brought to MFD (e.g. Electricity, Julius Caesar, Habitats, and Shipwrecks, Australian literature and Ships) ... except that those were copied from categories, and this was copied from a navbox.

It goes like this:

  1. TTH creates[116] the portal page, using {{subst:Basic portal start page}}, which draws its "selected articles" list from Template:{{PAGENAME}}.
  2. Template:{{PAGENAME}} resolves to Template:Continents. That makes an automated portal with all the links on the navbox in a single "selected articles" lists
  3. To create a sectioned list in the portal as in the navbox, TTH appears to have taken the contents of Template:Continents, and reformatted its as sections in the portal section.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 Template:Continents. Perfect match, except for subsequent mods to the navbox.

The portal draws its "selected images" solely from the article "continents".

The first save of the portal was simply another example of automated redundant clones of a single navbox which were deleted at two mass deletions: one, and two, where there was overwhelming consensus of a very high turnout to delete a total of 2,555 such portals.

The copying involved in step 3 above simply makes the portal a content fork rather a live clone like the 2,555 mass-deleted pseudo=portals.

However, two newish features of the Wikimedia software mean the redundancy applies in either acse 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:Continents.
  2. automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than a click-for-next image gallery on a portal. Try it by right-clicking on this link to the article Continents.

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

That makes the portal simply a bloated clone of the head article and its navbox. The portal's image-slideshow is simply a poor copy of the built-in-slideshow on the head article, and the the portal's "selected foo" article previews are already built into the navbox.

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).

Maybe someday, someone with genuine expertise in geography will want build a curated portal which actually trues to meet the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". A portal which actually added value would not simply try to replicate the navbox, but would add crucial geographers, geographic methodologies, and something about the evolution of knowledge of continents

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) 04:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - This portal was created in a wave of reckless portal creation. I don't see any likelihood of a better portal on this topic. Each of the seven (or however many) continents is a broad subject area that may or may not attract readers, and probably will not attract a portal maintainer. The article has 5864 daily pageviews (which is more than I would have expected), but the portal has 5 daily pageviews. I am willing to support deletion without prejudice only because a discussion about prejudice would slow things down. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PORTAL, WP:MEATBOT, WP:REDUNDANTFORK. SITH (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Christianity in ChinaEdit

Portal:Christianity in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal on the topic of Christianity in China. Redundant to the head article and its navbox Template:Christianity and China .

Created[117] in April 2008‎ by Brian0324 (talk · contribs).

It consist of four boxes: "Did you know", "Selected article" and "Selected biography", and a "Selected images" box. The list of images is automatoically drawn from the head article Portal:Christianity in China, so it is redundant see explanation below.

The subpages which fill the fiest 3 boxes are listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Christianity in China:

The portal offers a choice of only two at time out of a set of 6 articles. By contrast, the navbox Template:Christianity and China shows a total of 94 unique articles, all at the same without needing to refresh the page to see a new selection.

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:Indian Christianity or Template:Christianity and China .
  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 link to the article Christianity in China.

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

So the portal adds almost nothing to what is available on the head article. For example, the images shown in the portal are all drawn from the head article ... but as shown above, those same images are all available as a better slideshow built into the head article.

These new technologies have raised a high bar for a portal to climb if it wants to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But it's not entirely impossible that some time in the future someone might both make a better portal, and maintain it (unlike this one) ...

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) 03:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The portal has 12 daily page views, as compared to 519 daily page views for the article. See also analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Christianity in IndiaEdit

Portal:Christianity in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned mini-portal on Christianity in India. Redundant to the head article and its navbox Template:Christian denominations in India plus sidebar Template:Indian Christianity.

Created[124] in February 2008‎ by Tinucherian (talk · contribs).

41 sub-pages are listed at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Christianity in India, but most of them are formatting etc. The content is in:

The portal offers a choice of only two at time out of 7 articles. By contrast, the navbox Template:Christian denominations in India plus sidebar Template:Indian Christianity show a total of 117 unique articles, all at the same without needing to refresh the page to see a new selection.

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:Indian Christianity or Template:Christian denominations in India.
  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 Christianity in India.

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

So the portal adds almost nothing to what is available on the head article. For example, the images shown in the portal are all drawn from the head article ... but as shown above, those same images are all available as a better slideshow built into the head article.

These new technologies have raised a high bar for a portal to climb if it wants to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But it's not entirely impossible that some time in the future someone might both make a better portal, and maintain it (unlike this one) ...

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) 02:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The portal has 15 page views daily, while the article has 1643 page views daily. See also analysis by BHG. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Reference worksEdit

Portal:Reference works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Driveby junk created by @The Transhumanist (TTH) early in his automated portal creation, about a month before he began his mass spamming out of automated pseudo-portals "just for the heck of it".

I don't know whether this one was created "just for the heck of it", but it's abysmal.

This one draws its selects its "Selected type of reference work" from an embedded list of 14 items, of which 3 are: Magazine, Newsgroup, Newspaper. TTH evidently doesn't understand (or doesn't care about) the difference between a reference work (as explained on the face of the portal), and a work may be cited as a source in some situations. If the problem is unclear, then just remember:

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, but someone who both knows something about reference works and cares at least a little about the quality of the portal. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - An average of 10 daily pageviews, which is probably too many. But there are times when Playboy may reasonably be cited, including in the BLP of a model, and a tabloid may reasonably be cited in an article about a libel suit resulting from defamation by the tabloid. And spam was reported to NANAS. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ChechnyaEdit

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

Static micro-portal on Chechnya. Narrow topic, abandoned since 2007.

Created[136] in April 2007‎ by Girdi (talk · contribs), who last edited in 2015.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Chechnya shows only 4 sub-pages, of which:

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.

In theory, the Chechnya could be seen as a broad topic. However it has a population of only about 1.3 million, 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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 10 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still only 0.33% of the 3,014 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract any maintainers.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, but since this is a small, non-English-speaking area, it is much less likely that they will find a team of editors to maintain it. So I think it's best to just delete this portal, with prejudice against creation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - In addition to the analysis provided by BHG, the history of this portal shows that it has been a history of battleground editing over a region that has been a battleground. Any portal maintainer is likely to be either pro-Chechnyan or pro-Russian, and either is likely to be a magnet for sanctions. Delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20, 2019Edit

Portal:Córdoba, ArgentinaEdit

Portal:Córdoba, Argentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static mini-portal on the city of Córdoba, Argentina. Abandoned since 2012, apart from the usual formatting changes to the main page in 2018. No list of tpics, no rotation of content, no slideshow of topics, just the same static page for 7 years.

Created[139] in October 2012‎ by Cambalachero (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Córdoba, Argentina has a modest 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 65 consecutive updates.

In theory, Córdoba, Argentina could be seen as a broad topic. However it has only about 1.3 million inhabitants, and is not a national capital. So 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". It has consistently failed to attract maintainers, and since Argentina is not an English-speaking country, it is unlikely to.

I usually recommend deletion without prejudice to recreating a curated portal, to leave open the possibility that someone will find a way to make such a better portal and will find a team of editors to maintain it. But in a case like this, I think it is much more likely that any re-creation will be maintained only so long as its creator maintains it. So in this case, best to just delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - The concept of a "broad subject area" is being repeated over and over by supporters of portals as if that were all that the portal guidelines say. No. They say that portals should be about broad subject areas that will attract large numbers of viewers and portal maintainers. Cities, regardless of their size, do not attract large numbers of readers of the portal and do not attract portal maintainers. This portal has had 6 daily pageviews. This portal is not needed and is not likely to be needed. As BHG said at another portal recently, if this portal is deleted and another portal maintainer wants to come along, Deletion Review is thataway. Godot might be waiting there. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Bahá'í FaithEdit

Portal:Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Static portal about the Bahá'í Faith. Abandoned since 2005.

Created[147] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Bahá'í Faith shows just a set of static 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 160 consecutive updates.

In theory, the Bahá'í Faith coukd be seen as a broad topic. However it has only 5–8 million adherents, which quite small, and in prcatice 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 Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 10 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still only 0.23% of the 4,132 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 featured-class head article Bahá'í Faith and its navbox Template:Bahá'í plus sidebar Template:Bahá'í sidebar.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Bahá'í
  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 Bahá'í Faith.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Bahá'í Faith with Template:Bahá'í plus sidebar Template:Bahá'í sidebar.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 21:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ConfucianismEdit

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

Static portal. Abandoned since 2014 changes by a confirmed sockpuppet, having previously been largely abandoned since 2008.

Created[152] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Confucianism shows just a set of static pages, many of which were reworked in 2014 by Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked[153] ("AE") since June 2018 for sockpuppetry (see SPI)

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, and over 150 updates in all.

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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 11 pageviews per day, which is less than the abysmal the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still well under 0.5% of the 2,321 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Confucianism and its excellent sidebar navbox Template:Confucianism.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Confucianism
  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 Confucianism.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Confucianism with its sidebar {{Confucianism}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 20:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl and thank her for the metrics. Portals are not the best way to explain the interesting intellectual conflict in Asian history between two worldviews, and neither has readers or maintainers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:CottonEdit

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

Delete This is another single-agricultural product portal that falls far short of the breadth-of-subject-matter requirements of the WP:POG guideline, and can be more than adequately covered in Portal:Plants, Portal:Clothing, and Portal:Agriculture. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with nominator. During baseline period, portal had 4 daily pageviews, which isn't much, as opposed to article had 2102. Does User:Extra999 have a comment as to whether the deletion should be with prejudice or without prejudice? It looks as though a better portal should have a better scope. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:TaoismEdit

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

Static portal. Abandoned since 2014 changes by a confirmed sockpuppet, having previously been largely abandoned since 2008.

Created[161] in December 2005‎ by LatinoMuslim (talk · contribs), who last edited in early 2018.

It escaped the 2018 rush to automation. But the list of subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Taoism shows just a set of static pages, many of which were reworked in 2014 by Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked[162] ("AE") since June 2018 for sockpuppetry (see SPI)

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, and over 150 updates in all.

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". In Jan–Feb 2019 it got only 28 pageviews per day, which is twice the median of 13 per day for all portals, but still well under 1% of the 3,264 daily views of the head article. And it has consistently failed to attract 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 Taoism and its excellent sidebar navbox Template:Taoism.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the article and navbox 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:Taoism
  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 Taoism.

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

That sets a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle that "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Taoism ith its navbox {{Taoism}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I concur with the analysis by User:BrownHairedGirl and thank her for the metrics. Students of intellectual history will be interested that Lao Tzu is winning, at least among this mostly non-Asian audience, but that doesn't justify the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Smaller city portalsEdit

Portal:Baltimore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Struck at editor's request
Portal:Brighton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Bristol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Dresden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Erie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Jhelum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Kochi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Louisville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Miami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:New Orleans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Quebec City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Struck
Portal:Syracuse, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal:Tirana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete My own view is is that there are only 20 or so cities that have the combination of size, history, and global impact required for them to meet the breadth-of-subject-area requirement of the WP:POG guideline, but I don't think the consensus is yet that limited. Between those top 20 and the fifteen nominated hare is a middle ground of larger cities where consensus is still developing. Which leaves us with these fifteen: I DO think there is consensus that smaller cities certainly fall short of WP:POG's required breadth, and so I believe all of these should be deleted on that basis. All of the cities in this nom. have a city-only population under 700,000 (I recognize metro-are populations are larger, but that different basis doesn't normally change global relative rankings that much: smaller is still smaller). Though two were once featured portals, now all fifteen are of course in various states of repair/disrepair and ongoing maintenance. All of these have a next higher (state or country) portal where their subject should be covered instead and that is more likely to get greater page views. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian, note that Portal:Quebec City is already under discussion at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Quebec City. Please will you strike it from this nom? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Struck, thanks for the heads up. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Baltimore per all the reasons here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all (except Quebec City, already struck). WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers". These smaller cities are much less likely to attract sufficient editors willing to do the ongoing monitoring and maintenance which is required to ensure that portals actually fill their prime purpose, which WP:PORTAL defines as "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". Without broad enough scope, portals remain underdeveloped and fail to offer added value to readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep All as in Close This MFD - This will beIt was time-consuming for a mathematically oriented editor to assess and will be difficult for a closer to tease out the large cities, medium cities, and small cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I personally don't think that large cities should be given any consideration as broad subject areas, because we have seen that they do not attract either viewers or portal maintainers, and they certainly do not usually find one editor who will spend the time to create a miniature Main Page. But since some editors think that some cities are broad subject areas, we should not combine cities of different sizes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This table summarizes the pageviews for the portals and lead articles between 1 Jan 2019 and 28 Feb 2019 and provides notes.
City Portal views Article views Ratio Comments
Baltimore 9 2,892 321.3 Created by short-time editor in 2013. Kept in 2018 after rework.
Brighton 6 1,635 272.5 Author inactive since 2009
Bristol 8 2,314 289.3 Editor still active
Dresden 6 1,438 239.7 Automated from outline
Erie 6 584 97.3 Author inactive since 2009
Jhelum 6 163 27.2 Author blocked as a sockpuppet
Louisville 8 1,902 237.8 Author edits a few times a year
Kochi 6 1,195 199.2 Author inactive since 2018
Miami 12 3,771 314.3 Author inactive since 2010
New Orleans 13 4,825 371.2 Author inactive since 2007
Pittsburgh 19 2,728 143.6 Editor still active
Syracuse, New York 9 1,227 136.3 Author inactive since 2014
St. John's, Newfoundland 6 1,022 170.3 Editor still active
Tirana 7 879 125.6 Author inactive since 2016
  • Delete All - None of these portals have more than 19 average daily pageviews, which are always a small fraction, usually less than 1%, of the pageviews of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - A Salvelinus to the nominator for presenting a bundled nomination for this mixed bag of city portals having nothing in common other than being cities. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Portal:Baltimore was in uniquely bad shape a year ago when it was nominated. It was fixed and now has the same limitations and disadvantages as any portal. It should attract a large number of readers and portal maintainers, and should function as a miniature Main Page, which is a labor-intensive effort. It doesn't attract a large number of readers, and none of the other portals do. They should all be deleted, without prejudice to future re-creation under new guidelines, but with the understanding that a portal maintainer will be making a labor-intensive hobby out of the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:UnitedStatesian - Please don't create any more labor-intensive portal review efforts for hobbyists. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete All. Per nom. Add nothing over main-article+navbox, and their states of abandonment only degrade the perceived quality of WP in the eyes of a reader. Britishfinance (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question and partial proposal - can any of these be unbundled? It seems a large part of the issue, nominations and deletion support is that no one will maintain xyz. So if someone is able and willing to do so, I think it should have it's own discussion, as is the case for Baltimore, which I am currently improving. The guidance for maintaining portals is, in my opinion, lacking and hard to follow, if it were a bit easier, I'd have been doing this long ago but I've now improved it a fair bit and am continuing to work on it and am requesting as an editor in good standing that it is removed from this MFD. Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: I have struck Baltimore as requested. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Side conversation on struck portal
@UnitedStatesian: Thanks. Now if a portal guru could help me figure out how to cycle the DYKs and if it's the same as images, we're in business... Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae. Per WP:DYK, "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles that are selected through an informal review process. It is not a general trivia section" ... but this years-old list lose the newness, so their only effect is as a trivia section, contrary to WP:TRIVIA.
Instead of cycling DYKs, a portal should display only the newest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: I made the change that BHG recommends: the DYK now uses the six most recent entries from the latest 36 months. UnitedStatesian (talk)
@UnitedStatesian: Thanks for the help. I suppose this is actually part of the problem with Portals is that the guidance is...not great. My question about DYK that I've been asking elsewhere (mostly IRC) is if the DYK are based on actual WP:DYK or generic DYK for the portals. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Technically it can be done either way, but I think consensus is that the automated + overisght version is superior to trying to build it manually. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe it's a discussion for elsewhere but I feel when trying to revive a portal (and wrt portals in general) maybe building it is a fair bit easier but I'll do whichever way is "right" Praxidicae (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just found this portion of WP:WPPORT's newsletters, and I figured I should share it.

Getting faster

Automation makes things go faster, even portal creation. One of the components Certes made was {{Transclude list item excerpt}}. I became curious about its possible applications.

So I worked out a portal design using it, the initial prototypes being Portal:Kyoto (without a "Selected pictures" section), and Portal:Dubai (with a "Selected pictures" section). Then I used Portal:Dubai as the basis for further portals of this type...

I was able to revamp Portal:Munich from start to finish in less than 22 minutes.
Portal:Dresden took about 19 minutes.
Portal:Athens took less than 17 minutes.
Did Portal:Florence in about 13 minutes.
Portal:Stockholm also in about 13.
Portal:Palermo approx. 12 minutes.

Why?

To see, and to show, what may become feasible via automation.

It now looks highly feasible that we could get portal construction time down to a few minutes, or maybe even down to a few seconds.

The singularity is just around the corner. :)

In case anyone was curious how long it took to make these some of these types of portals and why they were made. –MJLTalk 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:UK railwaysEdit

Portal:UK railways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misconceived mini-portal abandoned for about 10 years.

The fundamental problem with this portal is its scope: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As explained at the short Rail transport in the United Kingdom, the island of Great Britain and island of Ireland have each have their own, separate rail systems. Each island has an integrated network. The two networks are not interconnected, because the Irish Sea separates them. And even if someone built a bridge across the Irish sea, they still couldn't be joined up, because the Irish network uses Irish gauge (1,600 mm) while the British network uses standard gauge (1,435 mm).

So the substantive articles are:

Given this misconceived scope, it is unsurprising that the portal has been abandoned. Any attempt to build a real portal here should follow the scope of the articles.

Created[172] in October 2006‎ by Nick (talk · contribs).

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:UK railways shows a mixed set:

So the scope is wrong, and there's nothing worth keeping. Please just Delete it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as creator I'd been pondering nominating it myself. It never really took off in any meaningful way. There's still a fair chunk of the content I wrote originally for the Portal still on the Portal's main page. The complexity of the two rail different networks and systems BHG presents above were never properly resolved and I don't think really can be easily disentangled. Nick (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Concur with the analysis by BHG and with the statement by the portal author. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:OrigamiEdit

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

Delete Abandoned micro portal (only three articles) on a subject too narrow to meet the WP:POG guideline's breadth-of-subject-area requirement. No associated WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with nominator. This portal has average 11 daily pageviews, as opposed to average 946 daily pageviews for the article. The author of this portal has been indefinitely blocked. (Not obvious what for, probably edit-warring. It doesn't matter.) This portal may have been a hobby for its originator; we don't need a portal that is a hobby for a banned user. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. The skimpiness of Category:Origami hows that this is far too narrow a topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Azad KashmirEdit

Portal:Azad Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned unmaintained regional portal, but with a twist!

This portal is about Azad Jammu and Kashmir, right? Well, guess what? It intentionally makes no reference to the Kashmir conflict. But wait, there's more!!

User:MJL - Does that mean: "But wait, there's more! It gets worse!"

This subject is under authorized Arbitration Committee Discretionary sanctions.

The portal (P:AJK as I will refer to it) was made in 2010 and then immediately nominated for deletion by Zetawoof. In 2012, it received an update on known sockpuppeter Rachitrali/Akbaralighazi (Related portals edited by this user include; MFD:P:Kalash Valleys and MFD:P:Chitral, Pakistan. Ongoing and Related: MFD:P:Gilgit-Baltistan & MFD:P:Urdu.

P:AJK has 20 subpages; of which only 15 are actively being used. Even then, one in use is still completely empty since 2016 due to Kautilya3 removal of the suckpuppeter's content. Most of the subpages were either created by the sockpuppeter in 2012 or Northamerica1000 in 2013. There is no listed maintainer for this portal. Credit where it is due: Anomalocaris cleaned up P:AJK's subpages in August last year.

This nomination actually has one more reason for deletion (if you can believe that). P:AJK can theoretically be considered redundant to Portal:Kashmir. Yes, that is right. There are two Kashmir-related portals. What's the difference? This one is for only the part controlled by Pakistan (rather than the entire region).

To conclude, P:AJK is a POV nightmare with no listed maintainer and no significant updates (minus cleanups) since 2013. It covers a highly contentious area and had significant contributions by a now blocked sockpuppeter. Major props should go out to Störm for bring this to my attention by posting to BHG's talkpage (I found this in Category:Pakistan portals.)

I therefore propose we delete this portal with prejudice against recreation. Cheers, –MJLTalk 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC) –MJLTalk 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Concur with MJL. I would suggest having the two portals fight a war, but the humor would be lost, and would have been too grim anyway. This portal has an average of 6 daily pageviews between 1 Jan 2019 and 28 Feb 2019. There is something weird about the pageview metrics for the article, because they peak at more than 45,000 on 26 Feb, but the median is 1657 and the mean is 4595, none of which makes a case for the portal that is, perhaps fortunately, underviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:ScientologyEdit

Portal:Scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(convenience link: subject article is at Scientology)

Delete I of course hesitate before nominating a former featured portal for deletion, but I think this one should be deleted for 3 main reasons: 1) a religion with an est. 200,000 followers globally does not meet the breadth-of-subject-matter requirements of the WP:POG guideline; 2) based on previous MfD discussions, consensus exists that a topic that is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions is not a good topic for a portal because of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV concerns; and 3) The portal is not being maintained; I note WP:WikiProject Scientology is now inactive (though I have talk page notified them anyway). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't want to argue about breadth-of-subject-area because I think that breadth-of-subject-area is a distraction that leads us astray like a will-o-the-wisp. I also don't want to argue that a consensus has been established that portals that are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions should be deleted, but I will argue again that such portals should be deleted. The portal has an average of 21 daily pageviews. The head article has 7779 average daily pageviews, and the Church of Scientology has 2328 daily pageviews, so the portal provides no service. I don't think that anyone can be knowledgeable about Scientology and neutral about it, so the four choices are to have the portal unmaintained, have the portal maintained by a Scientologist, have the portal maintained by an opponent of Scientology, or delete the portal. The second and third options are nothing but conflict-magnets and sanction-magnets. Delete it, with prejudice, that is, without leaving open the option of a new version of the portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Not a comment on the merits of keeping or deleting this portal, but by your logic, "I don't think that anyone can be knowledgeable about Scientology and neutral about it" and your implied opposition to the "conflict-magnet" scenario of the portal being managed by someone a person with firm views on the matter, how is it we have an article on the Church of Scientology in the first place? 'Tis a conflict magnet for sure, but that does not mean it should be deleted. Are you saying that the portal is just an unnecessary source of drama? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SarawakEdit

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

Non-portal on the Malaysian state of Sarawak, abandoned from 2013 to 2018, when it was converted into an automated navbox clone. So it's now just a redundant fork.

Created[177] in July 2013‎ by Omdo (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked since the end of July 2013.[178]

Using the old system of multiple sub-pages, it never had any substantive sub-pages for articles, or any lists of links beyond the navbox {{Sarawak}}. Special:PrefixIndex/Portal: is unusually sparse, with several pictures but no content.

In August 2018 it was converted[179] by @The Transhumanist (TTH) into an automated portal, drawing its list of "selected articles" solely from the navbox {{Sarawak}}, and its images solely from the head article Sarawak.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the the functionality which this portal sets out to offer is already built in to the head article. 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:Sarawak.
  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 Sarawak.

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

In theory, this state of 2.6 million people might be seen as 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 for 6 years, and in Jan–Feb 2019 got only 2 pageviews per day.

But the new technologies set a high bar for any would-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Sarawak with its navbox {{Sarawak}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and find a team of editors to maintain it ... 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) 09:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As BHG notes. This is a little-viewed portal even as little-viewed portals go at 2 daily pageviews. (By contrast, the head article about the state has 784 daily pageviews.) The author of this portal is not maintaining it because they were blocked for copyvio, which is a slightly different version of a common situation. (More portal-creators have been blocked or banned either for sockpuppetry or for battleground editing. But blocked editors can't maintain portals, and can't canvass for portal maintainers.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:SabahEdit

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

Static mini-portal on the Malaysian state of Sabah, abandoned since creation in 2014.

Created[180] in April 2014‎ by Muffin Wizard (talk · contribs), whose last edit was in late 2015.

Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Sabah shows several image pages, but only one content page:

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 state of 3.5 million people might be seen as 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 portal without content-forked sub-pages. For examples, see Portal:Geophysics, and Portal:Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Howver, 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:Sabah.
  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 Sabah.

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

That sets a high bar for any woukd-be-portal-builder to vault if they try to satisfy the WP:PORTAL principle "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". It would take a lot of work to make a portal which genuinely offers more than the head article Sabah ith its navbox {{Sabah}}.

But maybe someone will find a way to make such a better portal, and a team of editors to maintain it ... so I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to re-creating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - As specified by BHG. This portal has an In The News section which is about Asia, which is a big place, not about Sabah. That is a distraction, and is sloppy. The portal has too many redlinks. The portal has 6 daily pageviews, as opposed to 777 daily pageviews for the head article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Romani peopleEdit

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

Static portal created in 2007. Some changes in 2013, but abandoned since then.

Created[182] in June 2007‎ by Ronline (talk · contribs), and didn't touch this portal after the day it was created.[183], and last edited in 2013.

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.

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 9 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 recently been done with Portal:Geophysics.

I am unsure how boroad thsi topic 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) 07:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - Yet another abandoned heritage portal. Portal has 9 average daily pageviews, compared with 6077 average daily pageviews for head article. My own opinion is that, in addition to not being maintained, the portal does not provide an adequate introduction to the complex and often tragic history of these people. In any case, it is not being maintained, and would require a miniature Main Page to satisfy the objectives for portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Transnational child protectionEdit

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

Very narrow topic. Abandoned since 2016.

Created[187] 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)
  • Weak Delete because this is a strange case in terms of pageview metrics. The portal is the primary means by which the small number of readers read about the subject. The head article has 4 daily pageviews. The portal has 5 daily pageviews. What was really needed was the navbox that User:BrownHairedGirl has supplied. This is a case where the task force started out to do a job and didn't finish the job. The portal doesn't do any harm, but the navbox does the same functions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 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)

Portal:Role-playing gamesEdit

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

Static portal abnadoned since 2006.

Created[188] 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)

  • Delete - This portal has 20 daily pageviews, which hardly justifies the effort of maintaining a miniature Main Page. The head article has 866 daily pageviews. The 43:1 ratio of pageviews is less lopsided than for some portals, but still doesn't mean that the portal is needed. It may only mean that readers go to articles on specific games or types of games. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Portal:Dungeons & Dragons or Delete. This is an interesting scenario which I find may become all the more common as we continue on at WP:MFD. Here we have a child portal that is considered more active than the parent portal (see MFD:P:D&D for additional info). Either way, File:Cowardly lion2.jpg has nothing to do with RPGs and Gary Gygax is known for being the creator of D&D. Therefore, what little relevant selections that remain are redundant to the the aforementioned child portal. To explain my !vote, it might be worth it to redirect the main portal page to P:D&D, but that is to say nothing of the subpages which probably should be deleted as useless. Related nomination: MFD:Portal:Dragonlance. –MJLTalk 03:57, 25 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[193] 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete as per BHG. I note that one of the original participants has changed their !vote to a Delete. In contrast with 7 daily pageviews for the portal, the head article has 2258 daily pageviews, and that reflects the fact that there is no functionality of rhe portal that isn't already in the article. I doubt that anyone really wants to provide the investment of time for a miniature Main Page. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a disruptive, wikilawyered nomination. I'm unfollowing this, please do not ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • ""Disruptive wikilawyering" is an, ummm creative and imaginative way of describing an explanation of redundancy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Nom. Another abandoned out-of-date carve-out of the main article+navbox, that nobody want to support, and will only depreciate the integrity of the main article over time. One further thought I have had during these Portal MfDs is on the effect of Facebook fan-pages. What seemed like an interesting idea over ten years ago, has been passed out by Facebook fan-pages. Anything a fan might do in Wikipedia with a band portal would always be inferior to what they could achieve in Facebook (with links into WP as needed for content). E.g not only was there no past, but there really is no future in band portals on WP (or any other type of fan-related portals)? Britishfinance (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Tamil cinemaEdit

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

Abandoned non-portal about Tamil cinema.

Created[194] 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)

  • Delete - Another abandoned underutilized heritage portal. The portal has 8 daily pageviews. The head article has 984 daily pageviews. Is anyone, possibly a Tamil editor, actually planning to provide the effort required for it to be a miniature Main Page? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Telugu cinemaEdit

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

Abandoned non-portal about Telugu cinema.

Created[200] 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[202] 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[207] 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[211] 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[212] in June 2006‎ Grandmaster (talk · contribs) as a manual portal with subpages, and in January 2019‎ converted[213] 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[214]) 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[215] in 2010
  • One featured article, the excerpt of which has barely changed in 13 years[216]
  • One biography, which had its last significant edit[217] 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 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[218] 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[221] 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 in 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)
@BrownHairedGirl: I get your points, but... Wikipedia Guidelines are standards that "should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense" and clearly the standard here fails in practice for lack of maintainers, as is the case for so many other things in Wikipedia. The guidelines assume a level of editor activity that simply isn't there. Following the same reasoning completely, we would be deleting a lot of things that probably should not. Hopefully, the outcome of WP:CFPORT will be more automation in portals, removing duplicated contents (that necessarily goes outdated eventually), therefore cutting on the manual maintenance for me... as well as the manual deletion for you! More time actually improving articles has to be a plus for everyone in our community. Don't you think? ;-) Mathieugp (talk) 19:48, 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[222] 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[226] in December 2017‎ by King Prithviraj II (talk · contribs), who has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet since July 2018.[227]

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)

  • Delete - If the breadth of the topic area is measured by views of the head article, it is 721 daily pageviews in the baseline period, as opposed to 7 pageviews of the portal. A portal will have to be maintained by an amateur in the etymological sense of someone who is doing it out of love for the activity (and not even out of love for Wikipedia). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is needed to keep track of and store all featured content related to Malayalam cinema. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. This portal is doing little to keep track of Malayalam Cinema over the main article (and its navbox). This portal is so unsupported, that it depreciates the integrity of the main article+navbox (which are in ok shape). The best way to support Malayalam Cinema on WP is to further develop the main article to B-class (if not GA class), and ensure the navbox has all the necessary links to other Malayalam Cinema articles. At the moment, a reader reaching this portal will get the wrong impression that Malayalam Cinema is not well supported on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:47, 20 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[228] 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[234] 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[237] 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[242] 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[245] 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[246] 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)
    • I'd hoped there would be enough interest to take up the torch if my involvement faded, but it appears that has not happened. So, no particular comment other than deletion (if that is consensus) be without prejudice. One cannot predict future notability. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:08, 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[251] in August 2018‎‎ by @The Transhumanist (TTH).

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" 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[252] 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[253] 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[258] 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[259] 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[263] 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[264] 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[265] in January 2010‎ by Amol.Gaitonde (talk · contribs), it was tagged for speedy deletion[266] 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[267] by @Moxy to fix it, but the closer seems to have overlooked that Moxt withdrew the offer[268].

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.[269] 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[271] in February 2016‎ by Mmhuang (talk · contribs), but was just a load of redlinks. Per WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Volleyball, it was redirected[272] in April to the article Volleyball. In 4 March 2019‎ it was re-created[273] 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.[274][275]

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? --