Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates and Modules |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
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.
Information on the process
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 deletion
Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:
Deleting pages in your own userspace |
|
Deleting pages in other people's userspace |
|
Policies, guidelines and process pages |
|
WikiProjects and their subpages |
|
Alternatives to deletion |
|
Alternatives to MfD |
|
Please familiarize yourself with the following policies
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
- Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
- Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
- Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
- Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes
How to list pages for deletion
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.
|
Administrator instructions
Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.
Archived discussions
A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.
Contents
- 1 Information on the process
- 2 Current discussions
- 2.1 March 23, 2019
- 2.2 March 22, 2019
- 2.3 Portal:Alexz Johnson
- 2.4 March 21, 2019
- 2.4.1 Portal:Abuse
- 2.4.2 Portal:Alvarezsauroidea
- 2.4.3 Portal:Billy the Kid
- 2.4.4 Draft:Democratic Plantation
- 2.4.5 Portal:Pipilo
- 2.4.6 Portal:Peter Madsen
- 2.4.7 Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of family and consumer science
- 2.4.8 Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology
- 2.4.9 Portal:Caué
- 2.4.10 Portal:Bottled water
- 2.4.11 Draft:Nimika Ratnakar
- 2.5 March 20, 2019
- 2.6 March 19, 2019
- 2.7 March 18, 2019
- 2.7.1 Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist)
- 2.7.2 Portal:Nanyang Technological University
- 2.7.3 Portal:Chickenpox
- 2.7.4 Portal:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof
- 2.7.5 Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature
- 2.7.6 Wikipedia:Editorials
- 2.7.7 Portal:Alexander Litvinenko
- 2.7.8 Portal:Addison, Texas
- 2.7.9 Portal:Acipenseriformes
- 2.7.10 Portal:A. H. Belo
- 2.7.11 Wikipedia:WikiQuizzes
- 2.7.12 Portal:Achtkarspelen
- 2.7.13 Portal:Virginia Woolf
- 2.7.14 Draft:Chrissa McFarlane
- 2.7.15 Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE
- 2.7.16 Draft:Automated Pain Recognition
- 2.7.17 Draft:WPA Intelligence
- 2.8 March 17, 2019
- 2.9 March 16, 2019
- 2.9.1 Indonesian Provinces and Russian Federal Subjects
- 2.9.2 Portal:La Verne, California
- 2.9.3 Draft:Kerem Albayrak
- 2.9.4 Draft:ResetEra
- 2.9.5 Draft:The Greatest Depression
- 2.9.6 Portal:Culture of Belize
- 2.9.7 Portal:La Puente, California
- 2.9.8 Portal:History of computing
- 2.9.9 Portal:Jerome K. Jerome
- 2.9.10 Portals for the Birds
- 2.9.11 Portal:University of Phoenix
- 2.9.12 Random Small City Portals
- 2.9.13 Portal:University of Fort Hare
- 2.9.14 Portal:Philippine Women's University
- 2.9.15 Draft:Christina Rahm Cook
- 2.10 March 15, 2019
- 3 Old business
- 4 Closed discussions
Current discussions
- 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.
March 23, 2019
March 22, 2019
User:Charliebobgordon/TuneVibez
- User:Charliebobgordon/TuneVibez ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I came across this page in Category:Stale userspace drafts but hesitated to U5 it because of its extensive revision history. I can't find any independent coverage of this radio station and I don't think it has potential for the mainspace. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Plutarch
- Portal:Plutarch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Insufficent scope for a portal per WP:POG. Category:Plutarch and Category:Works by Plutarch have 7 articles between them. The "selected articles" section has been bulked out with articles on historical figures Plutarch wrote about, which I don't think is a coherent topic. Hut 8.5 20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree that including the historical figures about whom Plutarch wrote makes the portal amorphous. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. There are only a handful of relevant articles and several of those are very short. I agree that figures that were subjects of Plutarch's writing as well as translators of his works are insufficiently connected to form a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Assorted Mammal Portals
- Portal:Pigs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Rabbits and hares ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Cetaceans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Bears ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Horses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We don't need Portal:Pigs, Portal:Cetaceans, or Portal:Rabbits and hares if we have Portal:Mammals. I leave it to others whether we need a mammal portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- This could be a big bundle. Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Legacypac - Go ahead and add any more mammals to this bundle. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have time right now but Portal:Mammals is about the right level of depth in my view. We don't need Portal:Cows Portal:Horses Portal:Bears, Portal:Donkeys and so on (just to pick some examples I have not checked) Legacypac (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion as it appears to me there may be a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge as to the depth of individual mammalian topics, which would include humans. We have Portal:Primates, and Portal:Chess, but according to the above, the former should be deleted and included in Portal:Mammal, and the latter should be included in Portal:Board games. If portals are for the benefit of our readers, then we need the above named portals. Atsme Talk 📧 20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep All – Oppose deletion in part as per Atsme above. Upon actually researching these five portals separately from the standpoint of content availability on Wikipedia, these portals are all easily expandable. Also unimpressed with the "delete all" opinions above ("this could be a big bundle", "Go ahead and add any more mammals to this bundle"), as this suggests that the portals are not being considered on a case-by-case basis, but rather, upon subjective criteria, such as, "we don't need..."-style and "I don't like it"-style arguments, as has unfortunately become commonplace lately at MfD. Additionally, Portal:Horses was formerly a featured portal until the featured portal process ceased in 2017. North America1000 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- This user created about 70 automated portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- So what? My !vote is about these portals, not some other portals. North America1000 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- This user created about 70 automated portals. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's WikiProject Equine, WikiProject Cetaceans, and many other mammal projects despite also having WikiProject Mammals.… --Nessie (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all. There are plenty of mammalian topics that have a great deal of coverage. Horses in particular is a former featured portal and could be restored if it's been trashed. Cetaceans is a very broad topic and was also created long before The Transhumanist turned their attention to portals. In fact only two of these were created by that user or recently. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: per comments above. Horses is a featured portal, well-designed, and though the person who created it isn’t around any more, it is set up to self-maintain certain parts, and is useful to those seeking more informative on the topic. WikiProject Equine includes several thousand articles, not just on animal breeds, but also the sport aspects. I support keeping the major mammal portals, though not every species necessarily needs one. Horses are particularly unique and the GA articles fallng under this rubric range from paralymic athletes to rare and endangered animal breeds. Montanabw(talk) 04:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Frogs and toads
- Portal:Frogs and toads ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Salamanders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We don't need Frogs and Toads or Salamanders as portals if we also have Portal:Amphibians. I leave it up to others whether we need an amphibian portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all overlaps a long standing existing portal. There could be more to bundle here. Legacypac (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Both portals cover large groups with plenty of their own content. There's no reason why readers interested in frogs or salamanders specifically should be forced to dig through the content of a portal with a broader scope than what they're interested in. Abyssal (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Chino, California
- Portal:Chino, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only one subcat - people from Chino. We already deleted the portal on the county this city is in because that was too narrow a topic. The article on Chino does a much better job of introducing the reader to this town, including the map that these portals tend to lack. Maps are really important for pages on places. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Much of the sparse content is orange-level tagged or unmarked stub, but more is available under the related categories. However, maps are easy to add to portals. See eg Portal:Massachusetts. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Burlington, Vermont
- Portal:Burlington, Vermont ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Capital of the state but only 42,000 people means does not have enough scope for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Burlington is the largest city, not the capital. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Jane Goodall
- Portal:Jane Goodall ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fails WP:POG as insufficiently broad scope for a portal. There are 19 articles in scope. Only three articles are above start class and eligible for inclusion in the selected articles section: Primatology, Great Ape Project and Kasakela chimpanzee community (I think the first two are dubious). The automated script used to create the portal has done a very poor job and most of the "selected articles" are about awards Goodall has received or universities which have given her honorary degrees. Hut 8.5 19:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete few if any individuals should have portals. This shows why even a very famous person is a poor portal topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Being a great scientist or great writer or whatever is more than enough reason for an article. We are not debating the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Outline of lists
- Draft:Outline of lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A pretty useless outline of a navigation aid. There are way too many lists on Wikipedia to summarize on a page. We have Lists of lists of lists already. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - My first thought on reading this outline thing was "Huhh??". This is in draft space, and will never be a useful article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this is basically a collection of articles with "list" in the title, they don't really have much else in common. I can't see it being a viable article and it's been in draft space for some time. Hut 8.5 20:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Windows 10
- Portal:Windows 10 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal so bare-bones it doesn't look complete. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete why a portal on an individual product? Too narrow. I don't believe even individual companies justify portals. Legacypac (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, not because it is too narrow, but because, as the nominator says, it is a barebones ugly portal that looks unfinished. At least some of us are using this product to !vote on this portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Alexz Johnson
- Portal:Alexz Johnson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It took 11 edits over haf a year to produce a portal with in default view the same image three times, with the same article as "introduction" and default "selected general article", with a "subcategories" section which doesn't even have a category, never mind subcategories, with other selected articles which are tagged for not meeting the notability guidelines (not surprising, as they are demo tapes with little or no reliable sources about them), ... An example of everything a portal should not be. But automated and easy to maintain! Fram (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete One of the worst portals I have ever seen. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete epic failure Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete yet another one-person portal that doesn't have a reason to have a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlike many other current nominations, this one is indeed too narrow a scope for a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 19:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. It's as if there's a competition for the Worst Portal Award. The main article has a long-standing orange-level tag and no category. Most of the articles in the template are redirects to the main article; nearly all of the few that are not, are at least one of stub, orange tagged and/or broadly irrelevant. The template itself is being considered for deletion. This just squeaks by the speedy definition, sadly. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Albany, California
- Portal:Albany, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Albany, New York ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too small a city, and too small a pool of articles, to sustain a viable portal. Fram (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete too small a topic Legacypac (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and add another city with the same name, even though the one in New York is more important. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even Albany NY is under 100,000 people which is a significant tracking threshhold used by the UN, Wikipedia and others. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes; Albany, New York is a state capital, and still does not need a portal. We haven't considered whether portals are in order for US states, Canadian provinces, Australian states, Mexican states, German Lander, etc., which are politically and historically significant. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Even Albany NY is under 100,000 people which is a significant tracking threshhold used by the UN, Wikipedia and others. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment we've been nuking portals recently and I'm not sure why exactly - I've never seen portals until they started showing up at AfD or DRV. But I don't see why this needs to be deleted? SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of drink
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of drink ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of food ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"What type of thing is drink? Drink can be described as all of the following: " I love the section "Persons influential in drink". Rather unlikely that this will become a real, useful outline ever. Fram (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I've filled in the first blank on what kind of thing drink is. Do some people have no idea you can drink liquids? I've bundled outline of food same creator same problems. Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - If you are unfamiliar with ingesting liquids, then you either are compliant with the bot policy and should not be !~voting, or your are a non-compliant bot, and should not be editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete a very unfinished list thingy that may never be finished. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:The Ohio State University
- Portal:The Ohio State University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too narrow scope for this useless portal that gets 4 pageviews a day. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete part of a mass creation of Uni portals. Generally Indon't think any company or org needs a portal. The article does a better job of describing the organization. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. This was actually created in Feb 2016, well before the current mess. I don't understand the rankings of US universities, but there appears to be sufficient content in the category Category:Ohio State University and its subcats to support a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete by throwing into Lake Erie. Too narrow. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and broaden to be a portal about universities in Ohio, as while this institution seems broad enough on its own to support a portal, the other public universities in the state are unlikely to be, so using this a basis for a portal including them would seem to be the best all round. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop voting to keep things that don't exist. This is not about Portal:Universities in Ohio it is about a single school. If you want to create that portal I'll MFD it. Why Universities in Ohio or New York or any other arbitrary grouping of various schools that happen to reside in a given geographic area? We might have lists for that but not articles even. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your bad faith and inaccurate statements. I am recommending (remember this is not a vote) that this portal, which verifiably exists, be kept. I am also recommending that it be broadened, for the reasons I gave and you have ignored. Universities in the United States are largely organised per state, so that is a logical grouping. Before commenting again you might also wish to check your facts: see University System of Ohio, List of colleges and universities in Ohio, Category:Universities and colleges in Ohio, Template:Colleges and universities in Ohio, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop voting to keep things that don't exist. This is not about Portal:Universities in Ohio it is about a single school. If you want to create that portal I'll MFD it. Why Universities in Ohio or New York or any other arbitrary grouping of various schools that happen to reside in a given geographic area? We might have lists for that but not articles even. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Starbucks
- Portal:Starbucks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Newer portal built from the basic portal start page by another editor, so not subject to X3 as currently proposed. Should be deleted like the others as a derivative work of the ill conceived mass creation effort. Same kind of reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Legacypac (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As Legacypac says, created by a different author, but touched by the original author, who apparently has a reverse Midas touch. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – there are quite a few articles on or related to Starbucks, and this portal is a convenient navigation tool for surveying them. You can click through their leads until you come to one that you want to read in more depth – exactly what the slideshows were designed for: a browsing aid. Notability pertains to subjects, not to pages about them, and Starbucks is notable. Legacypac is confusing notability with scope, and scope is covered in the Portals guideline. This portal's subject far exceeds the scope required for a portal. Note that Legacypac is using this page as a venue to object to portals in general, which is not the purpose of MfD, and violates WP:FORUMSHOP. He's already stated his case against portals in the thread link he provide above. He hasn't provided any valid reasons for deletion, as the portal does not violate any Wikipedia rule, and follows all portal guidelines.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 11:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not confusing anything. This violates the existing guidelines and most likely will violate any new guideline that make it through a RFC based on the comments made in various venues. Starbucks is a notable topic, but an automated portal does a poor job of presenting any topic. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of numerous editors at Village Pump, AN and many MfDs of Portals that are still on this page and recently closed. Created with the same template/tools as the portals for which X3 applies - that is a darn good reason to consider deletion. The only difference here is the editor who hit save to create the page. Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Not seeing a valid rationale for deletion in the nomination, which consists entirely of an I don't like it rationale, and contains no analysis of the portal's actual content. North America1000 22:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The portal functions as a useful navigational aid for those who choose to use portals. North America1000 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I have created some portals, but I did not create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Also, I have added some info. to my !vote above. North America1000 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You created some of these automatic portals, and your vote to keep lacks any grounding in policy or analysis of the content of these portals. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, far too small a topic area to be of any use to readers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POG portals should be about broad topic areas and should have enough articles above start class to populate the featured content section. Starbucks is not a broad topic area and the featured content section is mostly populated with start- and stub-class articles, although it also has the main Starbucks article featured and a GA bio which barely even mentions Starbucks. Hut 8.5 08:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. The nomination seems to be principally a series of ad hominems and I don't like portals that I don't like. This is at the narrow end of broad enough to sustain a portal, so a merge to a portal about coffee shop chains or coffee shop culture might be better but it is good enough on its own. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can't merge to a nonexistant target like Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute? Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Saying "broaden" rather than "merge" may have been clearer, but merging several pages with a narrow scope into a new, broader one at a different title is a perfectly normal thing to do. As for X3, if you cared to actually read my arguments against it you will see they are perfectly consistent with my MfD recommendations (which are all left in good faith) - some of the created portals should be deleted, some should be merged and/or redirected and others should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can't merge to a nonexistant target like Portal:Coffee shop chains . Are you making these strange votes to bolster your claims that WP:X3 should not be approved because we need to have 4500 discussions on alternatives to deletion for pages that were created at the rate of 40 a minute? Legacypac (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject HBO
- Wikipedia:WikiProject HBO ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CoolSkittle (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
WikiProjects are typically created when there are multiple interested persons to maintain it. It seems the idea here was just to have one without thought on whether there needed to be one. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete there are far too many Wikiprojects and this one is too narrow Legacypac (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – there are quite a few articles on or related to HBO, and this WikiProject is a convenient navigation tool for surveying them. This WikiProject is not yet finishing. Notability pertains to subjects, not to pages about them, and HBO is notable. In most cases, there are other WikiProjects that are television channel related like Cartoon Network, Disney, Nickelodeon, and BBC.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 01:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- You may want to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - WikiProjects are unlike portals in that they do not require maintenance and do not break badly. They are just discussion pages. May be useful to a few editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note I think the rationale for deletion provided at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/WikiProject Warner is applicable here. WikiProjects shouldn't just be created on a whim. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. May be useful if someone decides to restart it. Inactive wikiproject pages are generally not deleted. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep for now. It was just created on 7 March 2019, and then nominated for deletion one week later. Allow time for it to be expanded, and time for users to actually find and see the project; perhaps some may then join it and utilize its talk page. North America1000 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- My understanding has always been that WikiProjects have to be approved based on having multiple interested editors involved. I did not know I could create however many WikiProjects I wanted and hope other people come along and start taking part. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Most Wikiprojects are gathering tumbleweed, and new ones should not be created unless there is a demonstrably extant group of editors actively collaborating on the topic. I see no evidence that such is the case here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
March 21, 2019
Portal:Abuse
- Portal:Abuse ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Grab bag of topics around a dictionary word. So broad a group of possible topics it is useless. A basic wikipedia search with even a little distinction would be a better way to navigate to what a reader is really interested in. This page was listed at AN as " This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it." Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. Keep, expand what is there. Enough dioceses have admitted neglect and cover-ups. The current nomination can be viewed as a cover-up. Would you like me to cite my local paper? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would be happy to fill in some blanks here if you like --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- They have articles here, by the way. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The portal reads with items which are apropos of abuse. What is the problem? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep– Meets WP:POG. The article is not a dicdef and neither is the portal. Furthermore, I'm having no problems with display errors as stated in the nomination. Maybe try using a different browser? North America1000 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The dosplay errors part was reported at AN in the WP:X3 discussion. I'm not seeing errors but I see a very disjointed selection of articles and DYK etc that happen to include the word abuse. Mimd of weird choice for a portal topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The topic was suppressed for decades; the problem spans social classes; 'weird' bespeaks a blind spot in our reconstruction of our world. It helps to have a diverse selection of editors in the search for appropriate coverage. Meaning it doesn't help to delete anything and everything that does not fit our personal reconstruction of what we believe. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Upon further consideration, I have struck my !vote above. North America1000 08:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The dosplay errors part was reported at AN in the WP:X3 discussion. I'm not seeing errors but I see a very disjointed selection of articles and DYK etc that happen to include the word abuse. Mimd of weird choice for a portal topic. Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - The argument being made for keeping this portal as a portal appears to be the same as the reason for the Alexander Litvinenko portal, to publicize a crime or crimes, but that is not the purpose of a portal. That is not even the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to summarize human knowledge from a neutral point of view as stated by reliable sources. That knowledge includes the knowledge of the murder of Litvinenko and the abuse by McCarrick and Pell, and does not mandate the use of portals for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per above comment, and as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the purpose of Wikipedia is not to Right Great Wrongs including those by Weinstein, McCarrick, Pell, and others. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then please explain why an organization would de-name buildings which bore names of the leadership. When an Army names some building for an enlisted man, it's not about rank, it's about (moral) leadership; and when an organization named for a saint does a good deed, namely to pay the survivors of abuse "In 2006, as part of the plan to pay the sexual abuse settlements in the California litigation, De Sales Preparatory Seminary made the decision to guarantee the loan the archdiocese took with Park Bank to settle with victims/survivors. In addition, De Sales Preparatory Seminary made the decision that it would sell the Cousins Center to assist the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in satisfying its debt to Park Bank"[1] it's about debt. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - We are not debating the content of the articles on Weinstein, McCarrick, or Pell. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have a point. This contains unreferenced BLP material and since portals never have references that's a problem. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The archbishop is now deceased; that's in our article about the prelate. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Ancheta Wis - Which archbishop is now deceased? I was referring to Theodore McCarrick and George Pell, who are both living, one of whom is currently an archbishop, and the other of whom was until recently an archbishop, and Harvey Weinstein, who is living and was never a priest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- William Edward Cousins —now dead— was the archbishop for whom 'Cousins center' in Milwaukee was named. That building is to be renamed, today,[2] apparently. Archbishop Cousins never laicized (meaning defrocked) the priests who sexually abused their flocks. However the archbishops have paid out enough in damages to force the archdiocese of Milwaukee into bankruptcy. And now there is quite a list of laicized men on their website; so you can argue the archdiocese has repented their coverup. (Archbishop Listecki —the current prelate— is to be commended for owning up to the situation). I actually never was aware of these details until I read about it in the paper, and then followed up on the portal deletion thread. Maybe today we will find out the new name for 'Cousins center'. I will post it on this thread for completeness. I can't speak for Pell etc and I don't have the time to document any other abuse of trust, other than to state that abuse is a syndrome (Abuse --> Neglect --> Cycle of despair --> on and on .. Suicide .. I forbear from continuing). We can do better than this, obviously. But the topic is not well understood and abusers will always be with us unless people take a stand. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Ancheta Wis - Which archbishop is now deceased? I was referring to Theodore McCarrick and George Pell, who are both living, one of whom is currently an archbishop, and the other of whom was until recently an archbishop, and Harvey Weinstein, who is living and was never a priest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The archbishop is now deceased; that's in our article about the prelate. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have a point. This contains unreferenced BLP material and since portals never have references that's a problem. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. The BLP argument is a strong one. Portals often include living people but rarely focus on negative aspects of their lives. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Snippets of some of these topics is not an ideal way to present with no refs and little context. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Crosscutting, like naming, is a literary technique, a doorway to another world, sometimes hidden or in shadow.[2] --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Snippets of some of these topics is not an ideal way to present with no refs and little context. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with no prejudice against creation of portals about specific types of abuse that do not mix drug abuse and child abuse just because they both contain the word "abuse". —Kusma (t·c) 09:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what was the reasoning? The portal is neutral: it crosscuts multiple kinds of abuse with a database query. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Per above, the argument to keep this portal is "cover up!!! censorship!!! right great wrongs!!!" CoolSkittle (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Minimisation (psychology) is a featured article. Off topic - this is a mess. No one is trying to censure anything. We are discussing the wisdom of a portal vs letting the articles do the job. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Count me out; I refuse to work on the dark side of the human condition, thank you very much. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (But I would have worked on the portal) --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are plenty of articles to improve. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- In what sense is Minimisation (psychology) a featured article? I saw no details in Minimisation that the maligned portal (or even this deletion thread) included, other than an invitation for some editor to perform some WP:SYNTHESIS to flesh out. That would not be a good road for that editor to travel. Again, no thank you. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are plenty of articles to improve. Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
---
- Delete: a hodgepodge of topics around a dictionary word. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Alvarezsauroidea
- Portal:Alvarezsauroidea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Oviraptorosauria ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Troodontidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a type of dinosaur. Portal fails WP:POG as it isn't a broad topic area and none of the articles in scope are above start-class. Also there is no linked category and the one "selected image" is repeated from earlier in the page. Hut 8.5 19:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The best way to describe this is: [1] — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with a meteor. An asteroid would cause collateral damage, as we know. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete make it extinct. I've bundled additional pages created at the same time by the same user with exactly the same issues. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Billy the Kid
- Portal:Billy the Kid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per WP:POG portals should be about broad topics. The scope of this one is cultural depictions of Billy the Kid, along with a few people who had some sort of connection to him. There are quite a few of these but not nearly enough to make it a broad topic. Hut 8.5 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Per non. Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete although the chirality of the image is interesting, that isn't a reason for a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete no portals about individuals. Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's a bit harsh. I'm not sure about deleting, say, Portal:Shakespeare. But Billy the Kid isn't nearly that influential. Hut 8.5 07:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Hut 8.5 that there are some individuals who can sustain a portal, Portal:Isaac Asimov and Portal:Donald Trump are examples, but Billy the Kid is not one them - should be (and probably is) covered at Portal:American Frontier. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Democratic Plantation
- Draft:Democratic Plantation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was put in mainspace and then speedy deleted Democratic plantationas housekeeping. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Seek_community_sanctions_(indef_Tban)_re_user_Bought_the_farm which is weighing the merits of a TBAN from this and related topics or an INDEF. Deletion of this draft is housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as OR and pushing non-notable and poorly sourced conspiracy theories. We are not a free web hosting service for publishing and editors' private vendettas against their ideological enemies. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not WP:OR and not a conspiracy theory. It is a criticism of the relationship that the Democratic Party has with African-Americans. You obviously do not agree with that criticism and that's okay, but it has been used in reliable sources. We go by reliable sources (I believe that's a popular saying around here) Besides those in the article, here's a couple more:Chicago Tribune Yahoo News --Rusf10 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Will never make it to mainspace. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Although the proponent insulted me, I am no longer abstaining. Deleting this draft is not housekeeping, but is a real MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The draft has been declined only twice. Most of the concerns have been resolved, and others can be too by editing. "Housekeeping"?! wumbolo ^^^ 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice for recreation Topic does probably meet WP:GNG, but this draft is not a good starting point for the article. ResultingConstant (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep- It's a notable topic backuped up by coverage in reliable sources. It can be edited to fix any concerns. Housekeeping is WP:CSD G6 (also called technical deletion). This isn't speedy deletion and it isn't uncontroversial (if it was there wouldn't be a need for a discussion). Therefore, housekeeping cannot possibly be a reason for deletion. Someone please provide an actual policy reason to delete (and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT)--Rusf10 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to another attempt So far it appears this word is a WP:NEOLOGISM, and so far this article has one-and-only-one RS that talks about the phrase itself. Per WP:NEOLOGISM we only have articles on notable neologisms, as established by quality secondary RSs. A single RS about a racially and politically charged neologism doesn't really establish the necessary threshold of notability in my mind. To cover an such an expression would be to lend our help to elevating it in the public eye, and we don't do that, especially for racially and politically charged neologisms. If neutral editors can establish that there are a number of quality secondary RSs that discuss the phrase itself, rather than just reporting that someone used the phrase, then maybe a neutral article could be started. But this POV push to trumpet the phrase in the public eye should be vaporized. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Pipilo
- Portal:Pipilo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A portal for a group of only six articles? Check! Repeating the image of the main article as the sole "selected image"? Check! A "subcategories" box without any subcategories? Check! Less than 1 pageview per day? Check! Another useless portal which doesn't even meet the standards of the portal project? Check! Fram (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete creator did not check before saving. WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Maybe the creator did check, and didn't care. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete X3 — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Whatever one thinks of portals for larger taxons of animals, a single genus is not broad enough. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Peter Madsen
- Portal:Peter Madsen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A portal for a group of only seven articles? Check! Repeating the image of the main article as the sole "selected image"? Check! Another useless portal which doesn't even meet the standards of the portal project? Check! Fram (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete X3 Legacypac (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete because portals cannot be imprisoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete X3 — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a suitable topic for a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of family and consumer science
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of family and consumer science ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
After 12 years, one would expect that this would either be finished enough to be placed in mainspace (where it resided for its first 5 years or so), or deleted. The actual state of it, with three articles in one section and a lot of empty sections otherwise, indicates that it is time to abandon and delete this one. Fram (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete another halfbaked idea from the same source as all these useless portals. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't think it is half-baked because I am not sure it ever went into the fire. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Has had more than enough time to become a valid article, but it has not been improved to an acceptable state. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of forest hydrology ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A nearly ten year old draft for an outline on a subject which doesn't even have an article. Fram (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete can we bundle these abandoned outline drafts (I'm using th term loosely as they were mass created sans content)? There are a whole lot of them.
- Delete As Fram says, it doesn't even have an article. The Keepers should at least have created the article in August 2016, but, no, leaving outlines lying around is like leaving portals lying around and is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Goes with the spirit if not the letter of WP:G8. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Caué
- Portal:Caué ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A portal for a 6K inhabitants district of a very small country. A portal with a Lua Error, a redlink as "subcategories", and a staggering 17 pageviews in the last 90 days... Fram (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete red all over. Featured article for me is "Ponta Baleia (Portuguese for "whale point") is a headland and a settlement in the south of Caué District on São Tomé Island in São Tomé and Príncipe. Its population is 43 (2012 census)." Amazing... an article that barely meets WP:GEOLAND and should probably be be up merged to the district page. The creator says he made these in batches, previewing and discarding unsuitable pages. How can that be true if pages like this got past the review? Legacypac (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Hardly worth the delete !vote, but the alternative would be portals that aren't worth it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. A handful of articles, at least two of which are untagged stubs, and a Lua error because no images are supplied. This should never have been created in this state. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, not worth discussing. —Kusma (t·c) 09:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Bottled water
- Portal:Bottled water ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Energy drinks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Soft drinks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Way too narrow scope for these portals. CoolSkittle (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Soft drinks – Meets WP:POG, covers a broad subject area that includes global distribution and interest, and has plenty of potential for expansion, in part as per available content listed under Category:Soft drinks.
- Redirect Portal:Bottled water to Portal:Water – I added some content to the Water portal to cover bottled water.
- No opinion regarding Portal:Energy drinks at this time.
- – North America1000 04:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all too narrow a scope for portals. Would not attract either wide reader or editor involvement. These topics are better handled in articles. The readers overwealmingly prefer the articles. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Redirects should be from article topics to article topics. The principle that redirects are cheap should not apply in portal space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with water, whether pure or flavored. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Redirects in Portal space are clutter. Hard to manage them because they look like Duplicate portals on the lists. Unlike article redirects that are often used contextually in articles, portal redirects are almost never used for inbound internal links. Search does a much better job for a reader then for us to guess what a reader might type. Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Nimika Ratnakar
- Draft:Nimika Ratnakar ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Ratnakar nimika/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Actress Nimika Ratnakar/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
At least three copies of the autobiography of this actress have been submitted by at least two accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Actress Nimika Ratnakar has also been filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The first three sources at User:Ratnakar nimika/sandbox easily sustain a draft, and are possibly good enough alone to justify mainspacing. Respond to duplicates by redirecting. I suggest by default to redirect the new to the old, discourage new forks by sending the authors back to the first page. Remnd them of WP:MOVE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - It appears that User:SmokeyJoe and I are in disagreement on two points. The first is whether spamming multiple copies of a draft is enough of an annoyance to the reviewers to warrant deleting the main copy of the draft, or at least a reason to consider deleting the draft (as opposed to redirecting the extra copies). The second is how and whether to enforce the autobiography policy in itself, whether we should help submitters with their autobiographies, pretend the authobiographies don't exist and let them expire, or take the conflict of interest into account as a deletion reason. If he is disagreeing on one of those points, then he and I disagree. If there is something else, please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Q. The first is whether spamming multiple copies of a draft is enough of an annoyance to the reviewers to warrant deleting the main copy of the draft, or at least a reason to consider deleting the draft (as opposed to redirecting the extra copies).
- A. Premise nitpick: You are using "spamming" loosely, like the kids do. A handful is not spamming. I will assume that a normal meaning of "spamming" is not meant here.
- A. No. A few redundant page creations does not warrant deletion, per policy, clearly written, at WP:ATD. "Redirect" is the answer. Come back to MfD only if reverted or explicitly disagreed with.
- Q. how and whether to enforce the autobiography policy in itself,
- A. Nitpick answer. Wikipedia:Autobiography is not a policy, but a guideline. And as a guideline, it is not even referenced from WP:Deletion policy, unlike WP:N, WP:DEL8. The person disagreeing with me in not appearing conversant with deletion policy.
- A. Wikipedia:Autobiography is weakly worded advice that people can ignore. It is good advice, because autobiography writers seem to always have terrible problems with selecting independent sources. If someone were to propose strengthening Wikipedia:Autobiography to give it teeth, I would support. Until then, its status is less than WP:PRESERVE (Policy), which speaks against deleting anything potentially useful.
- A. Yes, put them through WP:COI. WP:COI has some teeth, unlike Wikipedia:Autobiography. See my edits earlier this year to WP:COI, these edits stuck. Directrly editing a page with which you have an interest violates the behavioural guideline and thus is a reason for WP:BLOCKing. It is not, however, a reason for deletion.
- The something else that he is missing is sources that are plausibly good enough to sustain a claim of notability and meet WP:STUB is a strong reason to keep as a draft, and is a reason to consider mainspace, whatever the other concerns, barring WP:CSD#G5 and WP:CSD#G12. This draft has such sources.
- --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete blow it out as self promotion across multiple pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
March 20, 2019
Portal:Al Jolson
- Portal:Al Jolson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too narrow a focus for a portal. Individual entertainers don't need portals that make a poor substitute for their article.
- ► Al Jolson
- no subcategories
sums this up. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. While this appears to have >20 articles, nearly all of the articles in the template that I sampled, except for Al Jolson itself, are stubs or poorly developed articles, mainly focused on listing notable recordings by people other than Jolson. Some do not even mention Jolson in the summary extract ("The song became the signature song for singer and actress Lillian Roth..."). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete yet another single-person portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Edward VIII abdication crisis
- Portal:Edward VIII abdication crisis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overly narrow scope per WP:POG. There are 31 articles in the relevant category and some are pretty tenous for inclusion here, e.g. Wedding dress of Wallis Warfield, or Michael Joseph Savage (which barely mentions the crisis at all). Hut 8.5 22:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete what the heck was the creator thinking? No need for a portal on this topic. Not even sure we would need Portal:Edward VIII Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Many of these articles are of peripheral relevance. This seems like the sort of constrained topic that is well suited to articles and not at all to portals. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with the nom that this is too narrow a topic. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - We can guess that the creator was thinking that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Men at Work
- Portal:Men at Work ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Just barely passes WP:WPPORT's recommendation of 20 related articles (it has 21 listed in "topics"), but clearly not a big enough portal topic seeing as it has no selected images. This portal had better run and better take cover. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, not enough thought has gone into this portal. If you don't have any images, how about not including a "selected images" section and finding something else instead? —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Fixed empty section removed. — The Transhumanist 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Make that
Partly done. There are still no selected images, and that doesn’t reflect well on this portal. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Make that
- Delete the article does a better job of covering the topic then any design of portal could. The article links all the sub articles on albums and songs for a band. The article hosts available photos just fine. A portal is just a distraction that fails the reader - and the readers have spoken. The article got 25,300+ pages views in the last 30 days while this portal got 11 page views in the same 30 days (at least three of which are from the people discussing it here, and the rest are likely bots and web crawlers.). Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Fixing bugs in an unnecessary portal is a waste of bug-fixing time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Chivas USA
- Portal:Chivas USA ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Defunct soccer club in the US of all places + 7 acceptable selected articles + 10 season articles that show up in selected article + 2 selected pictures = delete. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete pointless. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Not arguing for retaining but there are 194 articles under Category:Chivas USA players, as well as 69 under coaches, draft picks & non-playing staff. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete without any sarcastic comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Exton, Pennsylvania
- Portal:Exton, Pennsylvania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fails WP:POG with flying colors. This is the most pointless town portal I’ve ever seen. CDP with population 4842?!? SMH. Also has the dubious honor of less than 1 view/day (10 in last 30 days, 58 in the 7 months it has existed), most of which are probably 1) web crawlers and 2) me seeing how unsuitable this portal is. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and the creator of this portal spam should explain why they made this. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is worse than even the template makes it appear -- several of the articles refer to the county, not the town, one is redirected to the main town article, and others are stubs (some not tagged as such) or orange tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with coal Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - This would seem to be too small a community for a portal. There are simply not enough related articles and it looks unlikely that there ever could be. I would also agree with the points Espresso Addict makes above. Dunarc (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya
- Portal:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominating for deletion, as this portal does not meet the minimum requirements at WP:POG:
- It's about a rather niche topic
- Only has 16 related articles (see Template:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya)
- The portal itself only draws from 7 selected articles (see Portal:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya/Selected article)
- Has only received 60 page views in the last 60 days (as of this post)
– North America1000 11:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and thank-you. Legacypac (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This portal satisfies the minimum requirements at WP:POG: Required. Also move to Portal:Rambhadracharya, in line with the main articles move.--Auric talk 12:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- How so? Less than 20 related articles (a very low bar) . Not a wide topic that attracts editors. Viewing stats show it does not attract readers. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- "This page outlines general guidelines and best practices for portals."
- Required:
- Introduction
- Categories –
- Subportals or Related Portals
- Topics –
- Selected article –
- Introduction
- How so? Less than 20 related articles (a very low bar) . Not a wide topic that attracts editors. Viewing stats show it does not attract readers. Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - It is true that this is a legacy portal, but legacy portals should not be exempt from review, and even one of the portal people is favoring deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Burlingame, California
- Portal:Burlingame, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Random city in California population 28,000. No point of a portal. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:POG as far too narrow. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Just because a navbox exists doesn't mean a portal is warranted. Plantdrew (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Just because a navbox exists doesn't mean a navbox is warranted, let alone a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
March 19, 2019
Portal:Aaron Sorkin
- Portal:Aaron Sorkin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too narrow a topic for a portal and it doesn't meaningfully expand on the main article/template. The contents are: the lead of Aaron Sorkin, selected articles which are all in Template:Aaron Sorkin as things he wrote or co-wrote (I count 16), two pictures of Sorkin, one of which is displayed a second time at greater resolution in case you missed it earlier, plus some portal boilerplate. Hut 8.5 23:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Basically no individual needs a portal. The article is the better way to see their life and work. Portal: 14 page views. Article 73,280 page views. Pretty clear what readers find more userful. Legacypac (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I think a few single-person portals can be valuable, but here there does not seem to be enough material to support one. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The principle here appears to be that every BLP deserves a portal. Well, I disagree. If that isn't the principle, maybe the portal people can explain what is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Bird Family Portals 2: Electric Boogaloo
- Portal:Psittacinae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Petroicidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Anchiornithidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Callaeidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Otididae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Sulidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Threskiornithidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
More portals of the same type:
- Portal:New World vultures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Old World vultures ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Frigatebirds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Peucaea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We do not need a portal for every family of bird. Per WP:POG, “portals should be about broad subject areas”. Related MfDs: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Woodpeckers, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tanagers, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete just like the others. These are for the birds - articles are better. The only info on Portal:Psittacinae tells us there is 11 species in the subfamily => fails the WP:POG the creators wrote. No 20 articles, no portal. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Psittacinae should be Merged with Portal:Parrots, Parrots and Parakeets should only have one portal.Catfurball (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:Callaeidae and Portal:Sulidae they are way to small.Catfurball (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. It is to be noted that even portal people are starting to support deleting some of the portals, which just shows that the establishment of these portals was done indiscriminately. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Good lord, Callaeidae? Really? Anyway, yes please delete per previous rationale. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- When two bird editors want bird portals deleted.... I added Portal:Frigatebirds Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- My god! Peucaea! a freaking genus? How many obscure taxa have portals? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "My god" is right. 4 nonstub articles on the topic. FOUR! This is why P2 needs to be expanded. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- My god! Peucaea! a freaking genus? How many obscure taxa have portals? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- When two bird editors want bird portals deleted.... I added Portal:Frigatebirds Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:James Webb Space Telescope
- Portal:James Webb Space Telescope ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overly narrow scope for a portal, Category:James Webb Space Telescope and the one subcategory contain 12 articles. The portal has had to be bulked out with some other articles of dubious relevance, e.g. Canadian Space Agency is included because they're making one of the instruments on it. This information is better presented in the article than the portal, for instance the images make a lot more sense when displayed next to paragraphs of text which talk about the object depicted. Hut 8.5 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:POG. WP:P2 should be at 20 articles so none of these narrow topics would be created. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is too narrow a topic for a portal. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, as above, and in view of the fact that the telescope isn't operational yet (literally has had a few screws loose). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:POG epicly. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Hilbert's problems
- Portal:Hilbert's problems ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Auto-generated portal which is inferior to the main article Hilbert's problems. It contains the lead from that article, a randomly selected problem (there's 23 in total and they're all listed in the article), links to Category:Hilbert's problems and Template:Hilbert's problems and some portal boilerplate. Does not meaningfully expand on the article and there's no scope for improvement. Hut 8.5 20:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete portals should make exploring a topic easier. This just adds a problem and more clicks to get answers. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a suitable topic for a portal. It's much better to present them as a list/table, as the article does. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Not portal material. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Not every historically important list of hypotheses needs a portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Bábism
- Portal:Bábism ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too limited sub-topic of Portal:Bahá'í Faith, viewed on average two times a day. Considering that all four sections of the default portal view are completely or partially about Baha'i anyway, and many of the other selections one can access to, there is hardly any need to have two separate portals. Fram (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment there used to be a pre-"automated" version of this portal that from the looks of it was substantially better and more focused. I think we should consider restoring it (which means restoring the deleted subpages). Can we get an admin to temp restore the subpages? It's really difficult to judge this portal based on its current inception instead of the original one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete old version or new version, the topic is too narrow for a portal and it is duplicative. Legacypac (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. The old portal had not been substantively edited since 2014, and looks to have been static. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Book Music & Lyrics
- Draft:Book Music & Lyrics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Book Music & Lyrics (BML) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There are all kinds of accounts around these drafts. Looks like UPE or sockpuppetry. Earlier version removed from mainspace. Not notable in my opinion. Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Would love an SI/CKU on this, something looks fishy. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Ducks eat fish, and some fish eat ducks. Yes, the socks need to be inventoried. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - One of the fish ate another of the fish. Delete the one that is still here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portals, University of X at Y
Yet another pointless micro-portal, this time for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, a small and unfamed uni with only 2800 students in 2016.[2] The Category:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff contains only one article other than the head article, tho is there is asubcat on the inevitable sports team.
There are more biogs in the sub-Category:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff people, but it is doubtful whether they would be a useful addition to the portal.
The assiciated Template:University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff is actually far more useful for navigation, because it appears on the relevant pages rather than requiring navigation to a separate page.
This is yet another product of The Transhumanist's batch-creation sprees. Now that it is abundantly clear that there is a strong community consensus against this portalspam, TTH's failure to assist the community by identifying and deleting their spam portals such as this is imposing an excessive cleanup burden on other editors. It indicates a deplorable lack of good faith. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all the University of X at Y. Do we really need a portal on each campus of the Univ of Wisconsin? No. I bundled pages that are essentially the same arguments to delete as the first example. For many schools we don't even allow articles for each campuses of a university so why a portal by campus? Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Utterly unnecessary. Reywas92Talk 08:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Do we need a portal for each of the 5,826,133 articles on Wikipedia as well? CoolSkittle (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I have no problem deleting this clump of portals. Portal:University is all we need here.--Auric talk 11:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the broad ones (e.g. Portal:University of California, and merge the specific ones (e.g. Portal:University of California, Los Angeles) into those portals. Portals about major educational institutions are viable but we should not get too specific. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- What Thryduulf said. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. The bundling here is deceptive; the ones on a single prestigious university should not be bundled in with single campuses nor with lower-prestige institutions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:University of California and California State University. Major public university systems, and these portals meet WP:POG. I agree that some of the bundling here is a bit incongruous. North America1000 04:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also Keep Portal:University of California, Berkeley – meets WP:POG. North America1000 05:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding that there may be some merit to a portal on a larger school, these were created indiscriminately and are poorly done. TNT is appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- TNT is not appropriate in the slightest - that is for where a single article or other page is best deleted and restarted, not for situations where you have many pages of varying quality. Thryduulf (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:TNT is an essay, it's not a guideline or policy. North America1000 21:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding that there may be some merit to a portal on a larger school, these were created indiscriminately and are poorly done. TNT is appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete all.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thryduulf: Well, two !votes herein just say "delete" with no other qualification, and almost all have provided no policy- or guideline-based rationale. Almost all that's here so far are I don't like it-style arguments. Hopefully the closer will keep in mind that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, right? North America1000 23:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry!
I don't seeNo make sense in the existence of a portal for a single thing, (a single biography, a single company, etc)Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)- Well firstly that's an "I don't like it" argument and secondly that doesn't even apply to all the nominated portals. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: It is not "I don't like it". Otherwise, there could be a portal for each wikipedia article.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- So there shouldn't be a portal for any "single thing", like Portal:United States, Portal:Geography, Portal:Atlantic Ocean, Portal:Queen (band), ...? You also haven't given any policy-based reasons why there shouldn't be a portal on "single things" just that you don't think there should be. Also note that Portal:University of California for example is about a system of universities not a single university any more than Portal:Education in Pakistan is about a single institution. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "You also haven't given any policy-based reasons why there shouldn't be a portal on "single things""This is the point of conflict. There is no policy of notability for portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Quite. Would you now like to express an opinion regarding these portals that does reflect existing policies/guidelines and the actual nature of these portals? Or are you happy with your vague handwave towards a policy that doesn't exist based on an incorrect assumption about what has actually been nominated? Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "You also haven't given any policy-based reasons why there shouldn't be a portal on "single things""This is the point of conflict. There is no policy of notability for portals.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- So there shouldn't be a portal for any "single thing", like Portal:United States, Portal:Geography, Portal:Atlantic Ocean, Portal:Queen (band), ...? You also haven't given any policy-based reasons why there shouldn't be a portal on "single things" just that you don't think there should be. Also note that Portal:University of California for example is about a system of universities not a single university any more than Portal:Education in Pakistan is about a single institution. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: It is not "I don't like it". Otherwise, there could be a portal for each wikipedia article.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well firstly that's an "I don't like it" argument and secondly that doesn't even apply to all the nominated portals. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry!
- Thryduulf: Well, two !votes herein just say "delete" with no other qualification, and almost all have provided no policy- or guideline-based rationale. Almost all that's here so far are I don't like it-style arguments. Hopefully the closer will keep in mind that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, right? North America1000 23:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion, prefer merging by state Wherever possible, merge all "University of X at Y" into "University of X." That would make for a better portal, which benefits the readers, and deleting them would prevent good-faith editors from performing such a merge. For example, I think it would have been better to merge all "Portal:University of Nebraska at ..." portals into "Portal:University of Nebraska" rather than first speedily deleting the latter and individually deleting all of the former. If merged, they could've been a decent portal, but deleting them all erases any chance in hell that they'll become a decent portal. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion sorting notices
|
---|
|
- I find I'm of two minds on the subject. If this were a "normal" bundled nom I think I'd be opposed to just lumping these all together. For example, the nom that brought this to my attention was the portal for University of Alaska Fairbanks. UAF is not some suburban sattelite campus, it is one of the main campuses of the University of Alaska, and in actuality the founding campus of the broader institution which was only incorporated in 1975, 60 years after UAF was founded. They do quite a bit of research into large animals of the north, aurora borealis, changes in sea ice, and even have a rocket test range. It's a for real university in it's own right. That being said, this is a slapdash portal thrown together and not really maintained in any real way, as it appears are most of the others. So while I could see having such a portal, it would only be if there was actually sufficient interest to maintain it and keep it vibrant, as opposed to something dashed together in a few minutes that is only edited every few months. So, really I'm saying delete with no prejudice against recreation by persons with an actual interest in having these specifc portals as opposed to auto-generated mass creations. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as broadly a bad idea. While I am interested in the possibilities of structured navigation tools, as categories are barely useful, and AI searching while great are kind of anti-intellect, the question is still: Can auto-Portals work, without forking content OR other volunteer editor maintenance cost, and produce something better than the actual parent article for each case. At the moment, for these portals for sure, the answer is no. Go back to the drawing board and stay there until there is consensus to launch for real. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
March 18, 2019
Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist)
- Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete draft per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mher Khachatryan (artist) (2nd nomination) just a month ago. Issues with WP:SPA promo accounts pushing and voting for this artist. See comments on the AfD from established editors not the IPs. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt - With two article deletions, the only reason for keeping a draft (and not a good reason) is to permit unregistered editors to try to find a careless AFC reviewer to accept the draft. Recommend Extended-Confirmed Protection to allow an established neutral editor to develop an article without interference from unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Nanyang Technological University
- Portal:Nanyang Technological University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This here's another pointless portal for a subject that doesn't warrant it. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete one of numerous university portals mass created. The articles do a much better job. Someone should bundle 50 or so University portals here. I've got other things to do tonight. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Yawn. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I can think of ways to make a portal page for a university, but the automated ways used here don't add any value at all. —Kusma (t·c) 12:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete without textbooks. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Chickenpox
- Portal:Chickenpox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New template-based automated portal on a small subject area with no hand-curated content. Only 12 articles are included (one of which duplicates the introduction), some of which are not of adequate quality and others are not well related. There is a particular problem here in that the introduction is about chickenpox but much of the content is actually complications of shingles; the automated introduction system does not handle such cases. The 8 images are not attractive and some display poorly at the size. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete to narrow a topic to explore with a portal. Lack of connected articles. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with Shingles Vaccine - As with varicella, what seems to be a mild childhood infection of portals has the risk of being followed by pain much later. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:POG first sentence. The creator freely admits they were not following the guidelines so why are we having to debate these. X3. Legacypac (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof
- Portal:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The scope of this topic is not large enough to warrant a portal. Most of the content here besides the main article is broadly related to the history of the region Cham Joof was from. The DYK section is composed of factoids selected from the main article, and as far as I can see, not of hooks featured on the main page in the DYK section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. There doesn't seem to be much content included (as far as I can see only one additional article, and two images of no obvious relevance). Much of the other suggested material is either of limited relevance, a stub or orange-tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete
and I put more thought into this vote than the person who created this page did making it.thought this was an automatically created portal. I oppose portals about single people or single companies or organizations as too narrow a scope. The success of Wikipedia is based on articles which already present information in a way that readers appreciate. The proof is in the readership. Almost every time you compare portal readership to article readership on a topic the contrast is huge. In this case the article is only gets 378 page views a month and for some reason the portal is ovr 200 page views. A merger to the article seems in order with a redirect. I can't understand where the portal views are coming from but we should send the readers and editors to the best option available - the main article. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC) - Keep. This topic is large enough or has the potential to be large as the subject is relevant in two African nations: Senegal and The Gambia. The organisations he founded; his books; his work in politics, broadcasting, academia, trade unionism, nationalism, etc., are so broad I don't even think this portal scratched the surface. I created the Cham Joof article over 7 years ago, and although I have not worked on the portal, I think the editor who created the portal did a good job with the resources available to them. As regards to images, the editor contacted me last year asking if I have any free images to upload at Commons, as the 2 images I uploaded many years ago I licenced as non-free. I promised to upload a free image but due to life and work, I totally forgot. I also promised to translate the Traditional African religion portal to French at French Wikipedia as I promised I would do. I totally forgot about that. It is also my understanding that the editor is going through a personal bereavement as per our conversantion on their talk page. I don't think they will even see this and I think it is quite mean-spirited for someone to degrade the editor by referring to their mental state when they created this portal. Totally unacceptably!Tamsier (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Tamsier: Portals are not about potential scope, they are about displaying the existing content in a different format. The best way of promoting this topic is to write and improve the content relating to the subject on the main Wikipedia, translate content from other-language Wikis and, as you mention, upload images, especially free ones. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, hand-written portal about an important African politician. Useful "Things you can do" section to encourage editing. Clearly not perfect, but a reasonable start. —Kusma (t·c) 10:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma and Tamsier: So far as I can tell, we have mercifully few portals about individuals at the moment. However, if this level of inter-relatedness between portal articles was sufficient to have a portal on Wikipedia, that sets a precedent for tens of thousands of other single-individual portals. I'm not exaggerating: most figures in popular culture have more relevant material about them; but in each case, including this one, the portal is redundant to the main article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: We have at least 580 at the moment. Most of them are terrible and should be deleted, even though for many of the people, it would be possible to write a good portal. Personally, I see no value in portals aimed at readers only. However, the portal we are discussing here is going out of its way to encourage readers to become editors. We don't need to attract readers (they don't have much of a choice in encyclopaedias these days anyway), we need to attract and retain editors. Do portals help with that? In my experience, it only works with a huge amount of effort, just like keeping a Wikiproject alive is a lot of work saying thank you and suggesting interesting things to do for people. So without an editing community or at least a cheerleader, the portal probably won't work all that well. But I don't see why we should discourage people from trying, especially as the quality (by my personal standards) of this one is so much higher than that of many zero-maintenance ones. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I respect the principle of that argument; but in this case I'm skeptical that even a well-written portal would have much value, because all the content compiled into it will be about regional history rather than the individual. Which is why I think it's misguided. It's not an unreasonable call, though, so we can agree to disagree. I've been wondering for a while whether we need a mass MfD for single-person portals, but I just don't have the patience to create it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was staggered to find we have 580 (!) in total, but a few of them will predate the current madness and possibly be useful. I recall Barack Obama used to be featured (the only single-person featured portal I can recall), and I am strongly arguing below that Jane Austen serves a useful purpose. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The ones in the top level of this category [3] may be the ones that pre-date Transhumanist's work. Some of these might well be viable if restored to their original form; Shakespeare, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that number surprised me too. I think your examples are the exceptions that prove the rule, though. How many people have material about them that is as widespread as Shakespeare? Also; the fact is that we have a very large number of navigational tools at our disposal; portals, lists, categories, navboxes, and the rather unpopular "overview" articles. I think we could comfortably afford to lose at least one of these methods altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to find out which navigational tools are actually used and how much. Personally, I tend not to use portals for navigation at all, and rarely use navboxes. In mobile view, three of the methods are hidden (navboxes, categories and portal links). Instead of these well-curated navigational tools, mobile view uses some automation to suggest three "related articles" (and I have no idea how much they help readers). Anyway, if we could come to a consensus what portals are and what they should do, we could probably decide on what is or is not a good topic for a portal. Despite my keep vote above, I am also not convinced that we should have portals about individual people at all, but discouraging them and deleting someone's effort are two different things. —Kusma (t·c) 09:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that number surprised me too. I think your examples are the exceptions that prove the rule, though. How many people have material about them that is as widespread as Shakespeare? Also; the fact is that we have a very large number of navigational tools at our disposal; portals, lists, categories, navboxes, and the rather unpopular "overview" articles. I think we could comfortably afford to lose at least one of these methods altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The ones in the top level of this category [3] may be the ones that pre-date Transhumanist's work. Some of these might well be viable if restored to their original form; Shakespeare, for example. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was staggered to find we have 580 (!) in total, but a few of them will predate the current madness and possibly be useful. I recall Barack Obama used to be featured (the only single-person featured portal I can recall), and I am strongly arguing below that Jane Austen serves a useful purpose. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I respect the principle of that argument; but in this case I'm skeptical that even a well-written portal would have much value, because all the content compiled into it will be about regional history rather than the individual. Which is why I think it's misguided. It's not an unreasonable call, though, so we can agree to disagree. I've been wondering for a while whether we need a mass MfD for single-person portals, but I just don't have the patience to create it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: We have at least 580 at the moment. Most of them are terrible and should be deleted, even though for many of the people, it would be possible to write a good portal. Personally, I see no value in portals aimed at readers only. However, the portal we are discussing here is going out of its way to encourage readers to become editors. We don't need to attract readers (they don't have much of a choice in encyclopaedias these days anyway), we need to attract and retain editors. Do portals help with that? In my experience, it only works with a huge amount of effort, just like keeping a Wikiproject alive is a lot of work saying thank you and suggesting interesting things to do for people. So without an editing community or at least a cheerleader, the portal probably won't work all that well. But I don't see why we should discourage people from trying, especially as the quality (by my personal standards) of this one is so much higher than that of many zero-maintenance ones. —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kusma and Tamsier: So far as I can tell, we have mercifully few portals about individuals at the moment. However, if this level of inter-relatedness between portal articles was sufficient to have a portal on Wikipedia, that sets a precedent for tens of thousands of other single-individual portals. I'm not exaggerating: most figures in popular culture have more relevant material about them; but in each case, including this one, the portal is redundant to the main article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, having a portal for just about any one person is ridiculous. I don't dispute his historical importance, but there simply aren't enough articles to make this valuable to the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Not every hand-written portal is worth keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete an important figure, sure, but for a portal to be a good idea we need to have a substantial number of articles about the person, and we don't. Category:Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof doesn't contain enough and many of the ones it does contain are other people associated with him. Per WP:POG portals should be about broad subject areas and should have a number of articles above start class in the topic area. Hut 8.5 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify?--Auric talk 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Auric:I don't see sense in the existence of a portal for a single person, a single singer, a single company, etc.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you clarify?--Auric talk 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature
- Wikipedia:Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your default signature ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays, it is generally considered beneficial to avoid writing redundant essays that do not add a new point of view to the project space. Per Wikipedia:The value of essays, the objective value of an essay cannot be determined, but the volume of interaction surrounding an essay can indicate how important it is. Neither page is a policy or guideline, but I take them to represent a rough consensus around essays and their purpose.
This page has had just 76 page views between 1 July 2015 and 17 March 2019, with a majority of those page views being before July 2016. While I find the point of view presented in the essay sensible, and Floquenbeam (the primary author) is still active, the essay is orphaned and has received very few recent edits and page views. As such, I think it would be appropriate to move the essay into Floquenbeam's user space, or to add the page to Template:Wikipedia essays (which appears to be an informal and actively curated collection of essays considered important) and see what happens. Presently, there are (surprisingly) no essays concerning signatures linked from that template. Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- So which "don't send contradicting messages" essay is this one redundant with? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: I genuinely don't know if it's actually redundant, hence my suggestion to include it in {{Wikipedia essays}} to determine roughly how significant essay readers think it is. Since the navbox forms a link farm and is transcluded on 500 pages, most essays linked from that navbox should have more page views than other essays by virtue of being included. If the essay becomes relatively more significant than other essays in the navbox (e.g. by not being the essay with the fewest page views, or by being referenced in users' comments), then that would in a way demonstrate that the essay should remain in the project namespace. Jc86035 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy - nothing wrong with the essay as far as I can tell, but lately it's come to be recognized that essays hosted in project space represent a common view of a large subset of the community, while those in userspace reflect the advice or minority opinions of a few. I agree with this essay, but I also think it's more the second thing than the first. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- If the project space is getting full and it's important to make room for more popular things than my little essay, then by all means userfy. If desired, I can also rename to "Wjwefjoiwejf" just to make sure it's seen by even fewer people. Cheers! --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. It obviously would be renamed to "Dmasvpoyds". Friendliest wishes, Natureium (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
- Sowiejgiowejgoiwjeogjw is taken, just for the record and all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. It obviously would be renamed to "Dmasvpoyds". Friendliest wishes, Natureium (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC).
- Userfy Author is still active. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep We don't remove useful information on the basis that no one has yet put appropriate links to allow readers to find the page. The essay contains good advice which should be endorsed by the community. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Meh. If the decision is not to keep it in Wikipedia space, then userfy. I'm of the (apparently ancient) school of thought that most user essays belong in userspace until such time as other people from the community decide it belongs in Wikipedia space, and someone else moves it there; that seems to have worked out pretty well for my essays, one of which someone else moved, and the rest of which are happily ensconced in my userspace. Having said that, there are so many essays in Wikipedia space that this shouldn't even raise an eyebrow; it's better than a lot of other ones I've seen, and it does at least have a point. Risker (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Nomination for deletion was a good-faith mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - useful, just not publizised well, it seems --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, can't see anything wrong with this. Having gazillions of essays in project space is one of the things that make the English Wikipedia great, and sometimes even a fun place to be. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: That an essay tells us to remove essays is not a particularly cogent argument. ——SerialNumber54129 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - This essay is useful advice for those who lack the basic social skills to know that one shouldn't serve open-face shit sandwiches at a garden party.- MrX 🖋 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Multi-authored project-related essay. Also note that the essay is "vitally important". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Ironically, I found out about this essay through stalking Floquenbeam's talk page and seeing the MFD notice.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Editorials
- Wikipedia:Editorials ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per Wikipedia:Avoid writing redundant essays, it is generally considered beneficial to avoid writing redundant essays that do not add a new point of view to the project space. Per Wikipedia:The value of essays, the objective value of an essay cannot be determined, but the volume of interaction surrounding an essay can indicate how important it is. Neither page is a policy or guideline, but I take them to represent a rough consensus around essays and their purpose.
This essay has had just 14 page views between 1 July 2015 and 17 March 2019. It is orphaned, the talk page does not exist, and the author (Basket of Puppies) has been indefinitely blocked since 2012 for abusing multiple accounts. Furthermore, the question in the essay appears to be answered by WP:NEWSORG (editorials are considered the same as opinion pieces, opinion pieces are rarely reliable secondary sources, and notability is generally based on coverage in reliable secondary sources). I think it would be appropriate to delete the essay or move it to a subpage of the creator's user page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Useless "essay" (really just a paragraph). CoolSkittle (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy as a disputed single-author essay. I presume to judge that User:WhatamIdoing does not consider herself an author. As a useressay, there is no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not consider myself an author. If this doesn't get moved to userspace, then it could be renamed to something like
WP:Requests for comment/Notability from editorials
or something like that, and treated as an RFC that never happened to get any responses. I have no objection to deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC) - Keep - No need to delete. No need to make a fuss about userfying. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Alexander Litvinenko
- Portal:Alexander Litvinenko ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too limited a subject to support a portal. Default view of the portal is a typical indication of the care taken with the creation of these portals, with the "selected article" being the main article, which is already the introduction as well, and the use of the flag as image twice( because, well, the main image in the article is not free, and this is the second image in the infobox, even if it is there very small and used to indicate his first "country of allegiance" only). A useless portal. Fram (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Topic is not large enough for a portal. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Alexander Litvinenko contains 8 pages, which is too narrow scope for a portal. It's had to be bulked out with content of dubious relevance, e.g. articles about Russian intelligence agencies (including KGB which ceased to exist in 1991) and the picture of the Soviet flag is rather silly. Hut 8.5 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with uranium - See Wikipedia is not a memorial. The only reason that I can see for a portal (as opposed to an article) is to publicize his murder or other crimes by Vladimir Putin. The usual reasons also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Addison, Texas
- Portal:Addison, Texas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This topic (a town of 13,000 people, without exceptional other characteristics making this stand out) is too limited to support a separate portal. Averages 1 pageview per day. Fram (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Useless. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per literally everything said against this portal mess. –eggofreason(talk · contribs) 22:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I am pro-portals, but this one is too small of a topic for a portal to be needed. The article sums the town up fine. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per the other smaller community portals I nominated. Here is an incomplete list Wikipedia:List of city portals Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - If a portal person agrees that this is not needed, it is not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Acipenseriformes
- Portal:Acipenseriformes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If neither the portal creator nor anyone else can be bothered to do even the most basic cleanup on a portal like this, then why has it been created or should it be kept? Not only has it an issue common in many of these mindless portal creations, i.e. the "selected image" not being "selected" at all but simply the same as the one in the main article, but the "introduction" is extremely funny (if you don't take into consideration that the intention is to help readers and provide something interesting and useful). Ending a text with "Notable characteristics of Acipenseriformes include: " because, well, we always take the first two paragraphs, and there was a line break after that ":"... just shows how much the portal creator(s) care about this. If they don't care, why should we? Just get rid off this. Fram (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Both the issues you have brought up have since been fixed. Gazamp (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete too narrow a scope, too clumsy an execution. The bird family portals are a similar problem. What the heck is the value of a FIXED page that only says "Acipenseriformes /æsɪˈpɛnsərɪˈfɔːrmiːz/ is an order of basal ray-finned fishes that includes the sturgeons and paddlefishes, as well as some extinct families". Our readers expect and deserve more! Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (with fish sauce) - The fact that two issues have been fixed doesn't address the main issue that the portal has no purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:A. H. Belo
- Portal:A. H. Belo ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not enough here to warrant a separate portal. Two articles, two "images" (with the result that the default view of the portal has twice the current logo, and once the similar old logo, as images), about 1 pageview a day. This is not portal material byb a wide margin. Fram (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this might fall under the intent, if not the rubric, of the speedy criterion. The header article has an orange tag, which should disqualify it. Only one of the other articles is nonstub & non-orange-tagged. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Espresso Addict. Textbook case of unneeded portal. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the kind of mindless mass creation that needs speedy deletion. What does this add to the article? Wikipedia has 5.7 million articles because people find them useful. If this was Portalpedia the site would have shut down years ago. I don't think any individual company os broad enough of a topic for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - With 2 articles and 2 images, maybe this gets a booby prize on the way out. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiQuizzes
- Wikipedia:WikiQuizzes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This wasn't necessarily a bad idea, but is now a decade old and has clearly not caught on—other than the two demo quizzes created in 2010, nobody has every actually used this to create a quiz. (Wikitext isn't and never well be a particularly good format for this kind of thing, and given that there are so many alternatives on the net that are easier to use and infinitely more customisable, I can't imagine this is ever actually going to catch on as a Wikipedia thing.) I suggest that this either be deleted outright, or it be marked as historical and all incoming links broken; at the moment all it's doing is wasting the time of people who see the link and think "what's this?", and potentially frustrating and upsetting good-faith new editors who stumble across the link, sign up to it and then wonder why their submissions go ignored. (If this is deleted rather than just marked as historical, its assorted subpages also need to be included.) ‑ Iridescent 12:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep or mark historical. Do not delete. This does appear to have been quite a decent idea. I don't see why Wikipedia should not have some kind of quiz system; it seems a naturally good fit for what we do. Certainly keep this around to allow for future programmers / quiz gurus to adapt from or improve upon. Why is this even at MFD? --Doncram (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Mark as historical -- ∯WBGconverse 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - It is dusty, but I do not hear any sneezing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Feel free to archive, if you concern is that someone will be damaged by believing that this is active. Do not delete Wikipedia history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Achtkarspelen
- Portal:Achtkarspelen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Portal on a random smallish Frisian Dutch municipality, of limited interest (i.e. not more so than other such municipalities), with only a small number of articles. Viewed on average less than once a day. Fram (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Just as useless as the other portals on small municipalities. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete random topic with no reason for a portal Legacypac (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Virginia Woolf
- Portal:Virginia Woolf ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
We have a very well developed article at Virginia Woolf and this old portal that displays random photos without context or full captions, the first two paragraphs of the main article, and if you purge the page, some random page about one of the author's work. This is objectively far less useful than the Virginia Woolf page. The creator is long inactive. Portal is not supported by a wikiproject and readers don't care about it. 196 page views on the portal vs 591,976 on the head article. Why bother to link to something confising and substandard when only 0.03% of readers interested in the topic stumble into and likely click through to the article immediately anyway. If not delete, just redirect. This is not an WP:X3 creation but has been edited by the reboot team. Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It has a long history that should not be deleted. Solve the problem by redirect to Virginia Woolf. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
For now, Neutral because this portal precedes the spree of portal creation, and I see no specific reason why this one needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)- Comment: Not all of the photos have captions, but most have captions. It could use some work, but that has never been a valid reason to !delete.--Auric talk 11:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Years of lack of maintenance for a portal is a reason to delete. Scope problem is another. I think very few individuals need portals. We are trying to establish some baseline for inclusion criteria. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- While on one hand in general I don't want to discourage others contributing to the project in ways I don't personally value, on the other, my leaning is that portals are 13 years moribund. A few are so big that they continue on historic momentum, but the majority are moribund, and compete for attention from mainspace, negatively. The main portal, Wikipedia:Community portal, is not even in Portal space. That's my long standing position. None of it implies that deletion is the answer. Archiving is the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Years of lack of maintenance for a portal is a reason to delete. Scope problem is another. I think very few individuals need portals. We are trying to establish some baseline for inclusion criteria. Legacypac (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The proponents have made their point that single-person portals are only in order in extraordinary cases. I can't define extraordinary cases, but, like Judge Stewart, this is not one of them. Woolf was a great writer, but there are many great writers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Chrissa McFarlane
- Draft:Chrissa McFarlane ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Chrissa McFarlane (2) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Plus two related pages below
The authors of both of these drafts have been blocked for covert advertising (that is, undisclosed paid editing). The first version has been declined twice at AFC. The version was draftified due to the COI and UPE. Recommend Extended-Confirmed Protection so that a neutral editor can create if they think she is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per "08:41, 16 March 2019 User:MER-C (talk | contribs) moved page Chrissa McFarlane to Draft:Chrissa McFarlane (2) without leaving a redirect (Promotional, ACPERM gaming, questionable notability, WP:GS/Crypto topic area. Likely covert advertising. Needs review at WP:AFC.). Had this been correctly just redirected when reviewed as already existing in mainspace a bot would have deleted it. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsuitable promotion. No independent sources.
- Delete also:
- All CryptoSpam, crossing over into healthcare. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Concur with additions, which have now been tagged. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as above. The second author tried to circumvent the AFC review in ignoring the original declined draft, and pushing (2) to mainspace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salt as nonnotable spam. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE
- Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Circular-logic, childish drivel, which basically says "the article should be kept because it should be kept!!!!! Silly!!! Nuff said!!!!"
Insofar as there is any substance, it says these things are often mentioned in travel guides ... but WP:NOTTRAVEL, and travel guides have few of the qualities of WP:Reliable sources.
The essay itself quotes someone else describing it as a "a piss-pathetic essay". That is way too kind to it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mainspace as a multiauthored project related opinion, on the assumption that Icewhiz (talk · contribs), who added this, supports it's location in projectspace. Otherwise, userfy as a disputed single author essay.
- In either case, rename to titlecase, to that it does not look like a project shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- This was an essay started by Doncram and after sorting through the links the only user who has ever linked to it in a deletion discussion is Doncram. I have a big problem with this, since it's essentially a single-user personal essay being used to ignore the fact WP:NBUILD/WP:GEOFEAT is not an absolute marker of notability at AfD. Favour any result from deletion to userfyication. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously. It is an essay that is the opinion of one or more Wikipedia editors. It covers castles, museums, public attractions. It is a minimalist-style essay, pointing out succinctly that castles, museums, and other public attractions are pretty obviously wikipedia-notable, because abundant sources exist about them. It is my opinion that not much needs to be said.
- The deletion nomination relates to my mention of wp:ITSAMUSEUM at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla Memorial Center, an AFD nominated by BrownHairedGirl, where I just commented that their nomination was poor in quality, because IMHO it is unlikely that they performed wp:BEFORE, and because IMHO it is pretty obvious that museums open to the public are wikipedia-notable.
- I don't known if it is very relevant to this MFD, but I have personally been experiencing a number of BrownHairedGirl (BHG)'s interactions with me as amounting to wp:Bullying and Bullying. This might be the subject of a future wp:ANI or wp:arbitration. On my talk page is an comment by BHG to which i replied, to which they have not further replied. I accept however that this MFD is about the validity of the essay, whether or not BHG has been engaging in bullying. --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Doncram, I did WP:BEFORE, and as I noted in the nomination[4],
(e.g. Gbooks just throws up pasing mentions).
AGF please. - If you want to make a complaint about my alleged "bullying", then you know where WP:ANI is; this page is not ANI. Good luck in fabricating whatever evidence you need, because there has been no "bullying" so your only hope is fabrication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, well BHG is doing "piss-pathetic" IMHO in their ongoing AFD, having so far garnered seven "Keep" votes so far and no support so far for deletion. I actually don't mind their characterization of the essay as "the article should be kept because it should be kept!!!!! Silly!!! Nuff said!!!!". IMHO that is the appropriate quality of response to AFD nominations such as theirs. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Sorry, i was going off-topic and i didn't need to say that. --Doncram (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Doncram, I did WP:BEFORE, and as I noted in the nomination[4],
- Comment — "and travel guides have few of the qualities of WP:Reliable sources." The travel guides I normally buy and read are typically published with editorial supervision. Perhaps you wish to explain what you meant by this? I may wish to view this as one more opinion desiring to push us in the direction of a news site which reflects only news sources, regardless of how low in quality those sources may be. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Right, imho BHG's complaint about travel guides is off-base. The article does not give telephone numbers, opening hours, etc., which is the topic of wp:NOTTRAVEL. The guideline about NOTTRAVEL is that we should not try to provide opening hours etc. Which is not at all to say that independent travel guides (which indeed might provide opening hours along with substantial info about the importance of sites) cannot be reliable sources. In fact high-quality travel guides can indeed be very reliable sources. And in general, museums like this are likely to be covered in high-quality travel guides, and are pretty obviously wikipedia-notable. --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 01:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Userfy to User:Doncram/It's a castle and delete the WP shortcuts per SportingFlyer. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Per Wikipedia:Essays: Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. ... The value of an essay should be understood in context, using common sense and discretion. Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or funny.
I see no reason to delete any essay unless it were defamatory or illogical and since this one is neither it should stay. Markvs88 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC) - Keep. The vast majority of castles are inherently notable. This is a relevant arguement for castle AfDs which nearly always close keep (this was written after such an AfD).Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - It is what it is. It is also an essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the page could use some good editing but the premise is spot on. I've got guidebooks from many publishers I've field tested around the world and I consider them very reliable sources. Lonely Planet, for example, not only has a writing team and editors but solicits corrections from readers, acknowledged in the next edition. Wikipedia is not interested in the stuff that changes like opening times and prices but the history and descriptive write up on the museum or castle etc is going to be darn accurate, distilled to the most important details, especially after the guidebook has been through an update or two or ten. Recently I approved Batumi Piazza which is a tourist attraction (and totally cool - check out photos on page and linked). It's notable because website after website talks about it when discussing what to see in Batumi. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Merely sums up common sense and is a reaction to ludicrous claims by deletionists, in their personal quests to delete as much of other editors' work as possible for their own arcane reasons (often, I suspect, merely because they enjoy it), that such sites are not notable. I should point out that most of them meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - In my opinion the essay is well written and useful. This essay is all common sense and is within the scope of Wikipedia:Essays. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Automated Pain Recognition
- Draft:Automated Pain Recognition ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CoolSkittle (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Synthesis of published material, move (transwiki import) to Wikiversity 94rain Talk 06:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 05:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Can we do that for these WP:NOTJOURNAL articles? I have a bunch of these that I've had to reject, see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_56#Technical_research_papers_and_summaries_as_articles AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, leave it to the standard AfC processing, which includes the six month delay before deleting if the author cannot overcome the indicated problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The author says on the talk page that: As "Automated Pain Recognition" is a very young scientific field, not much secondary sources exist.".--94rain Talk 07:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:WPA Intelligence
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) CoolSkittle (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:WPA Intelligence ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Ashlee Rich Stephenson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Chris Wilson (pollster) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Todd Vitale ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Bryon Allen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Alex Muir (political consultant) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:AnnieCR 1991/sandbox/Ashlee Rich Stephenson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These drafts are the only work by User:AnnieCR 1991. The persons are all associated with WPA Intelligence. The author has declared a connection with respect to Stephenson, using a malformed box, and has not declared the connection with the other articles, so that this is mostly Undisclosed Paid Editing, that is, paid editing, mostly undisclosed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment the sourcing stinks but WPA itself could be notable. The people working for it, much less likely. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Question - Does that mean to keep the company and delete the people? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree that the company may be notable, but am arguing for deleting its draft as UPE without prejudice to re-creation by someone else. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The COI has disclosed. Is there any reason they couldn't keep working on the draft company article to provide sourcing? valereee (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As is being discussed at WT:DEL#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product, being UPE or COI product is not per se a reason for deletion. AfC is meant for COI writing. Get the author to make a declaration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
March 17, 2019
Bottom Importance Portals
Withdrawn by Nom It has become clear that the WikiProject Portals assessment system is very inconsistent and therefore a poor way to group nominations. I'd prefer to leave this open for the rest of the seven days for additional comments though.
- Portal:Bacon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:24 (TV series) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:A Nightmare on Elm Street ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:A. R. Rahman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Abu Dhabi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:AC DC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Academy Award ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Academy Awards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
:Portal:Anime and manga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Battleships ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Coke Studio (Pakistan) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:College basketball ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Harry Potter ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Jane Austen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Narnia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Sacramento ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Saint Petersburg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:The Prisoner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This portals were assessed by WikiProject Portals as "Bottom" importance (below Top, High, Medium and Low). Bottom Portals are "Portals on niche topics; typically individual (or small groupings of) people, places, and things – including film, television, and book series" which means they conflict with the portal guidelines which specify portals that will attract readers and editors. These portals are found in Category:Bottom-importance Portal pages and were generally assessed by the main proponents of portals
The portal creators are a little behind on assessing importance because Category:Unknown-importance_Portal_pages has 4,699 unassesed, but we need to start somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Is User:Legacypac saying that the portal people are saying that these portals are useless? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion of Portal:Anime and manga That is not a niche topic nor individual by any means with over 14,000 articles to its name (and constantly growing).--十八 21:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion of Portal:Anime and manga This is an actively used portal here with thousands of assessed articles, please strike it from the MfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've striken Portal:Anime and manga as it appears to be improperly assessed. I'll raise the importance class on it and unmark it for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've striken Portal:Anime and manga as it appears to be improperly assessed. I'll raise the importance class on it and unmark it for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Jane Austen, a portal based on a level 3 vital article that dates to 2012 with 11 FAs/FLs/GAs and many more high-quality articles as well as considerable reader interest. If this has been assessed as low then I think the portal assessment needs refining/ditching. As a side issue the portal lacks a deletion notice. Some of the other lit ones appear viable too, Harry Potter for example, which dates from 2006 pends off a level 4 vital article and has plenty of available content including 30 FAs/FLs/GA. Possibly Narnia too. In fact I'm tempted to say the whole list is poorly chosen as several others look very plausible: Battleships has an immense list of high-quality content, and plenty of people seem interested in that area, Saint Petersburg looks well developed, and Abu Dhabi might have been ok before it was broken. I have not got time to review them all. I also think bundling such a diverse group under the header Bacon is not reasonable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bacon is just the first one so it created the page name. The heading is clear but I'm not looking to cause any confusion so I'll move the whole page. If the assessment system is broken that is an issue that brings into question the portals assessed at higher levels of importance. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think these should be bundled separately by topic. Unlike your other nominations there's no consistency of topic and a broad range of importance. The initial inclusion of Anime & Manga suggests that the assessment is simply random. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I bundled this small batch because they were all assessed the same. If they should be assessed the same Bottom level is why I bundled them. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- We both agree that the judgement of the portal project is not to be relied upon. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I bundled this small batch because they were all assessed the same. If they should be assessed the same Bottom level is why I bundled them. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think these should be bundled separately by topic. Unlike your other nominations there's no consistency of topic and a broad range of importance. The initial inclusion of Anime & Manga suggests that the assessment is simply random. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bacon is just the first one so it created the page name. The heading is clear but I'm not looking to cause any confusion so I'll move the whole page. If the assessment system is broken that is an issue that brings into question the portals assessed at higher levels of importance. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion of Jane Austen portal, because Jane Austen stands alone as an author. As to Harry Potter, Narnia, is there a fantasy portal for them? Merge three authors into a Fantasy portal. Those two and J R R Tolkien were made into movies in the 21st century, a common experience of a generation. Why not tie them together, as they are tied together by the timing of the movies, though not the novels. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of specific food portals but only Bacon is assessed as Bottom importance. It's weird frankly. Also lots of bands but only AC DC is assessed this low. Generally I believe the author's or band's page does a much better job then any portal. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- On authors, I don't necessarily agree. The article on Jane Austen, whilst a GA that appears to adequately cover her life, is not a good introduction to her works, their subject, style, innovations & place compared with contemporary writing, their long, complex critical history, the plethora of adaptations, nor the cult of Jane Austen. It is a huge topic, on which thousands of books have been written. Moreover, if one is interested in Austen at the "whoah, Colin Firth is hot!" level (and many are), a long detailed prose article with little on the modern adaptations is not at all what you are looking for. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Struggling to understand why this collection of pages was nominated. We have Category:Bottom-importance Comics articles which has over 2000 entries but AFAIK they haven't been declared useless. Remember that Deletion is not cleanup. The better thing to do would be to reassess the pages.--Auric talk 11:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question - I wonder if, as the nominator has pointed out, the "Bottom" importance assessment has been applied in an irrational way (i.e., that Bacon is tagged as Bottom, but all other specific food portals are tagged higher), it might not be the criteria we ought to be using to determine whether a portal should be deleted or not. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment First off, for clarity, I created :Portal:The Prisoner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I followed what I believed were correct Portal processes for creating this portal and then updated the Talk page to 'Bottom'. It seems that through my own endeavours to categorise as such this portal gets roped into being nominated for deletion. Had I decided to instead list as 'Low-importance' it would have been omitted (for now at least). So, have a look at the Low-importance portals list and witness a large number that have less content than The Prisoner one (e.g. :Portal:Adam Smith ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), :Portal:Air Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and the classic :Portal:Bedding ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and there's plenty plenty more). I just think there needs to be a far better way of assessment here. Also, there clearly needs to be more information on the Portal creation page as following the "How to make a good portal" means a lot of potential creators may well think their portal (though niche) has value and follows rules and is worth inclusion. As for understanding WP:MEATBOT etc they not great examples of plain English TBH. Portals obviously need better assessment and clearer instructions. Should :Portal:The Prisoner ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) get deleted then so be it but I do wish that better portal instructions had been in place before I wasted several hours on the 'Did You Knows'... Londonclanger (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Looking through these examples, it suggests the problem is with the evaluation system. Qwirkle (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Jane Austin, Harry Potter, Academy Awards (+redirect), College basketball, Sacramento, Saint Petersberg, Abu Dhabi. If we're going to have Portals these all have significant enough content to populate such a space. No opinion on the rest simply because I haven't looked at them but would guess they would likely be delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose all as a class, these are very disparate portals that have been incorrectly bundled. Keep Jane Austin, Harry Potter, Abu Dhabi, College basketball and Academy Awards specifically as these are very significant topics about which there is ample scope for a portal. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a grab bag that includes some hugely popular topics that have remained so for decades (Bacon, Harry Potter, Narnia, College basketball, most of the rest). Improvement, not deletion, is the best course of action for these. RobDuch (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A. R. Rahman. This person is popular in India and portal has enough significant content as well as topics. Mr. Smart LION 04:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
March 16, 2019
Indonesian Provinces and Russian Federal Subjects
- Portal:Jambi ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jambi is a province of Indonesia, with a population of 3 million. However, as with many other non-English-speaking areas, en.wp's coverage is thin: the entire tree of Category:Jambi+subcats contains only 18 non-stub, non-biographical articles, so it does not even meet the risibly low bare minimum of 20 set by the fans of mass-created auto-portals at WP:WPPORT.
Hopefully some day en.wp's coverage of this region will expand, but as of now there simply aren't enough articles to justify a portal.
This portal is yet another auto-generated drive-by creation of portal-spammer @The Transhumanist, and it is so badly configured that its selected article list contains only a single page. That could theoretically be fixed, but since there are not enough articles anyway, there is no reason to keep this page in the hope that in far-off some day there may be more articles and the portal may actually be curated. Better to just WP:TNT it; there is nothing here worth preserving, and this portal-to-one-page is simply a waste of readers' time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Extended list of bundled pages
|
---|
The list of portals has a bunch more. There are 34 in total Provinces of Indonesia: Portal:Aceh • Portal:Bali • Portal:Bangka * Portal:Belitung Islands • Portal:Banten • Portal:Bengkulu • Portal:Central Java • Portal:Central Kalimantan • Portal:Central Sulawesi • Portal:East Java • Portal:East Kalimantan • Portal:East Nusa Tenggara • Portal:Gorontalo (province) • Portal:Jakarta • Portal:Jambi • Portal:Lampung • Portal:Maluku (province) • Portal:North Kalimantan • Portal:North Maluku • Portal:North Sulawesi • Portal:North Sumatra • Portal:Papua (province) • Portal:Riau• Portal:Riau Islands • Portal:South Kalimantan • Portal:South Sulawesi • Portal:South Sumatra • Portal:Southeast Sulawesi • Portal:West Java • Portal:West Kalimantan • Portal:West Nusa Tenggara • Portal:West Papua (province) • Portal:West Sulawesi • Portal:West Sumatra • Portal:Yogyakarta. (Found this one at Portal:Special Region of Yogyakarta Redlinked ones are planned and copied from the list. While they are first order subdivisions of the country, Indonesia is not a federation and the provinces are created for administrative convenience, not because of any historical reasons (compare to countries like Canada, USA, Germany, and Switzerland where most first level subdivisions have a historical identity and significant self governing powers). Many of these provinces have been formed in the last 20 years out of other provinces. Indonesia is better broken into 7 geographic regions which are each somewhat culturally distinct from each other. I've been to some of them and can say travelers will not generally notice they are in this or that province within Kalimantan or Java but that there are cultural differences between those regions, and especially the region of Western New Guinea. These portals are so useless at least some don't even have a map. Legacypac (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC) All the ones that say "current rollback vandalism" are pages that have never been touched since creation. Given the rate of creation, were these pages even looked at when created?
Russian federal subjects
|
Discussion
- Redirect to Jambi or delete per nom and WP:BLOCK User:The_Transhumanist if he creates any more without using an approved Bot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all I've added evidence that these were mass created in contravention of WP:MEATBOT. Assessing these junky portals is taking more time then went into creating them all. Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all Pointless time sink. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. - More evidence that we need a speedy deletion criterion. Are these second-level administrative subdivisions? We have already had India and the United States. Will China or Brazil be next? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - No. These are first-level subdivisions. Will Russian oblasts be next? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes User:Robert McClenon. We don't need portals for the 85 federal subjects of Russia either. Bundling the ones I could find. Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Country level portals should be enough.--Auric talk 11:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete please. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to broader topics. It's likely that in future we will have enough content for useful portals about at least some of these, and given that portals about major first level subdivisions exist in other parts of the world (e.g. Portal:Ohio, Portal:Manitoba, Portal:South Australia, Portal:Wales, etc) it's quite likely that readers will look for portals on equivalent subdivisions in other parts of the world. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:La Verne, California
- Portal:La Verne, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Too small a topic for a portal. Category:La Verne, California contains only 13 articles, of which three are electoral districts of which La Verne contributes <10% of the population, so La Verne is arguably not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those topics.
Even with those pages included, the total is way below even the absurdly low minimum of 20 articles set by the fans of mass-portal-creation at WP:WPPORT.
The navbox at Template:La Verne, California does a better job at helping navigation, because a) it is displayed on the articles themselves whereas the portal requires navigation to a separate page, and b) the portal displays only one page at a time, whereas the navbox displays them all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Like the other small cities. Can these be bundled? Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
discussion on individual nominations vs group nominations
|
---|
|
- Delete or redirect to clean up. BLOCK anyone who does mass creations without an approved Bot. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Kerem Albayrak
- Draft:Kerem Albayrak ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Way too much AfC effort wasted on this. Now this is being brought up at the AfC helpdesk. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The multiple accounts and IPs behind this aren't learning. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete A news story about single event. jni(talk)(delete) 07:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Have the multiple accounts been reported for suckpoppetry? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:ResetEra
- Draft:ResetEra ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deleted in Jan at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ResetEra the proponent refuses to accept this, posting at the AfC help desk after the page was rejected. Delete by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per AfD discussion. Bonus deletion points for the "Wikipedia Bias" section not satisfying WP:SUBJECT. jni(talk)(delete) 08:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - This is an absolute mess, and there's a good argument for WP:G4. I do believe that an article could probably be written on ResetEra, considering it does have a decent amount of notability in the industry as the major successor to NeoGAF, but it needs to be done by someone unbiased and starting from scratch. I've gone ahead and redirected ResetEra to NeoGAF#History until such an article can be written. Nathan2055talk - contribs 01:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - As noted by User:jni, the trouble-stirring of the Wikipedia Bias section is an add-on that strongly suggests that the author is not here to contribute constructively but is trying to use Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Are GamerGate sanctions available? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:The Greatest Depression
- Draft:The Greatest Depression ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Total NOR violation, to say nothing of being unsourced and using a crystal ball not available to the rest of us. Utterly unsalvageable. Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete would be a U5 but it is in Draft space where anyome can host anything they like for 6 months or so Legacypac (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This draft is the perfect archetype of conspicuous original research Zingarese talk · contribs 16:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Original research. jni(talk)(delete) 08:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Original research, soapbox, crystal ball. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Culture of Belize
- Portal:Culture of Belize ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another pointless portal, with only 3 pages in its selection list, and uncurated apart from a few minor tweaks by its creator. In theory, a portal like this could be developed based on Category:Belizean culture, but that's only in theory: in practice, as with many hundreds of similar automated portals, nobody wants the job. It's almost unused by readers: only 30 pageviews in the whole of January 2019. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The goal seems to be a portal on every country's culture and more as Portal:Culture of Bengal (compare to Portal:Culture of Bangladesh) shows. Legacypac (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deleteas fails existing WP:POG Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect & threaten BLOCK. These nominations are all the same (making many same parallel nominations is itself disruptive). The issues are always the same. TTH is the sole author. MfD them all in a group nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete'. Fram (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Portal:Belize until such time as there is sufficient curatorial interest. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:La Puente, California
- Portal:La Puente, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another undersized portal. Category:La Puente, California contains only 17 articles, two of which are state legislature districts where La Puente accounts for less than 10% of the population, so they are marginal inclusions.
Even the create-as-many-portals -as-we can WP:WPPORT sets a minimum of 20 articles, which portal this doesn't meet, and it also fails the WP:PORTG guidance that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers
.
The eponymous Category:La Puente, California does a much better job of providing navigation between articles, as would Template:La Puente, California if it was expanded. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or even better Nuke with WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:History of computing
- Portal:History of computing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pointless. The only actual navigational aid is a category tree of Category:History of computing, and that is handled better by simply going directly to Category:History of computing.
There might in theory be scope for a genuinely useful portal on this topic, with a properly-curated set of articles ... but this page is not it, and there is nothing worth keeping. So WP:TNT it; anyone building a genuine portal at a later date will do better to start from scratch rather than try to build on @The Transhumanist's drive-by-creation . BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- But BHG this portal has the all important link to the Ref Desk where you can ask random questions and random people can do Google searches for you. However this Portal is so sloppy mass produced the ref desk link is generic not Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, so Delete as junk that was mass created by a script with no thought or common sense. Legacypac (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - A retired information technology engineer and intellectual historian will review this one within 12 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - If I were asked to give a new reader an introduction to the history of computing, I wouldn't send them here. This only illustrates that any subject is capable of having a useless portal. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Jerome K. Jerome
- Portal:Jerome K. Jerome ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A micro-portal with only 7 articles: the author Jerome K. Jerome, plus 6 pages in Category:Works by Jerome K. Jerome and its subcat. That falls way short of even the risibly low minimum of 20 set at WP:PORTG.
These pages are already interlinked by the navbox Template:Jerome K. Jerome, which offers vastly superior navigation because
- it displays all the links at the same time (the portal displays only one), and
- it is present on each of the content pages, whereas the portal is usable only by navigating to a different page.
Note that like most other micro-portals, this none was created by @The Transhumanist. It is notable for having been created in December, long after TTH became in September aware that their spree of micro-portal-spam was contested. The scope of this portal is pretty rigidly defined by the finite set of JKJ's notable works, so unlike some other micro-portals, it never had any remotely plausible prospect of expansion. It would be helpful if TTH explained how it ever came to be created.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the author died in 1927 so it is unlikely this topic may grow. Why was this created exactly? Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - User:Legacypac - It was probably created because creating portals is fun (but is an empty sort of fun that puts a burden on the community). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portals for the Birds
- Portal:Woodpeckers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Birds-of-paradise ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Gruidae ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Hummingbirds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Parrots ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Penguins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Sparrows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Storks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Toucans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Trogons ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Tyrant flycatchers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Cranes (birds) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (redirect)
It appears that woodpeckers are part of a family and not a whole family. I will be bundling other taxa that seem to have been created in the Portal Spree. Tapping away at these portals is like being a woodpecker looking for insects. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Parrots are an order. Most of these are families. That just illustrates that there was no grand pattern to the creation of the portals.
- Delete all Wikiproject Birds never asked for these and at least one of their members was at MfD trying to delete a similar page. Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Legacypac - Good rename. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:Gruidae – Does not meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines at this time, drawing from only 13 articles for its selected articles section. North America1000 18:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete Portal:Birds-of-paradise– Does not meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines at this time, drawing from only 9 articles for its selected articles section. North America1000 18:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Now check it. — The Transhumanist 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral regarding Portal:Birds-of-paradise now. Modified my initial !vote above. North America1000 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disabled the stub filter on the selected articles section with
nostubs=no
. Bird stubs tend to have pictures, which works well for bird portals. — The Transhumanist 03:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disabled the stub filter on the selected articles section with
- Keep Portal:Parrots – The portal meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draws from an appropriate selection of articles, and serves as a useful navigational page. The nomination for deletion entirely lacks a policy-or guideline-based rationale for deletion. There is no requirement for portals to be created per hierarcical taxonomic ranks, such as upon whether or not an animal is classified as being in a biological family or subfamily. Also, the notion that a WikiProject did not ask for a portal is not a valid rationale for deletion. North America1000 18:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Sparrows – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draws from an appropriate selection of articles, and is a useful navigational page. The nomination for deletion has no policy-or guideline-based rationale for deletion. North America1000 18:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop making multiple bolded Votes! on nominations. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, please stop making inappropriate, erroneous orders to users. Multiple !votes are allowed for bundled nominations. Otherwise, people would have to !vote for all at once in only one manner or another (e.g. keep or delete). This makes it easy to state "delete all" for those who, for example, dislike portals, but is an inferior method that discourages objective analysis of each separate page. My !votes are entirely valid and stand. See WP:TRAINWRECK for additional information. North America1000 19:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would be cleaner if you combined all your !votes in one paragraph, certainly all your !votes with identical votes and reasons. (And your reasons are, in fact, contrary to current guidelines for portals.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are mistaken, please stop making inappropriate, erroneous orders to users. Multiple !votes are allowed for bundled nominations. Otherwise, people would have to !vote for all at once in only one manner or another (e.g. keep or delete). This makes it easy to state "delete all" for those who, for example, dislike portals, but is an inferior method that discourages objective analysis of each separate page. My !votes are entirely valid and stand. See WP:TRAINWRECK for additional information. North America1000 19:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop making multiple bolded Votes! on nominations. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Penguins – Meets Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draws from an appropriate selection of articles (over twenty in this case), and is a useful navigational page. Furthermore, the nomination for deletion has no policy-or guideline-based rationale for deletion. North America1000 19:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the lot - I was about to nominate cranes - but hell get rid of all of them. The rationale is this - each family page, and bar one these are all family pages, is all the navigation you will need, or is all the navigation you will need with its associated "list of species" page. These are not large enough subjects to warrant a portal, even if there are more than twenty species you could hypothetically include in the portal. We do not need, in any way, a page on cranes that links to all the articles about cranes and an attached portal that also links to some of the articles about cranes. Bird is a subject wide enough that an overview of the subject warrants a portal. A family isn't, and even an order (the parrots) doesn't really either. They certainly don't need half arsed portals where the images are directly harvested and dumped into the picture with without captions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the lot - portals are obsolete....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all of them - they serve no useful purpose Craigthebirder (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- delete A vote based on my preference that portals be expurgated from wikipedia, the same reasons that apply to them all. cygnis insignis 22:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all per above comments. Note: even the links to Wikiversity etc are just searches (e.g. many of the links shown by the link on the penguins portal are to pages about Penguin Books) - in some cases there are no results from the search (contrast this with, for example, interwiki links on articles that list things that actually exist). Readers would be better off using the links from the articles or just googling. DexDor (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all, subjects too minor to warrant even well thought portals, never mind these things. For example portal penguins, which got a "keep" above as "a useful navigational page", has a poorly layouted introduction, where the second image is then reused as the default "selected image" (a common failing of many of these automated portal creations), and is otherwise mainly a rehash of the navigation template which is already included on all these pages. A poorer duplication of what we already have avaialable to serve our readers, so no need to keep this. Fram (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:University of Phoenix
- Portal:University of Phoenix ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another pointless micro-portal, this time for the University of Phoenix. There is nowhere near enough content to justify a portal. Template:University of Phoenix lists the head article plus 3 other articles; Category:University of Phoenix adds 3 more, giving a grand total of only 7 pages.
7 pages is way below even the risible minimum of 20 articles set by the portal-creation-club, and its barely enough to make a useful navbox. There is simply no navigational purpose to having a portal for such a narrow topic, because a navbox does the job better: less bulky, clearer list of options, and visible on the same page as each article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – not enough articles present in main namespace to qualify a portal for this topic (see WP:PORTG). North America1000 03:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I've proposed changing WP:CSD P2 from 3 non-stub articles to 20 as even the portal fans think they need 20 articles. Legacypac (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The portal fans only say that they need 20 articles. They would probably create 5.5 million portals if we let them. See User:Robert McClenon/Oversized Queries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Or more. I found Portal:University of Nebraska and Portal:University of Nebraska-Lincoln which share the same base article. That's what happens when you use a script to automatically make batches of portals at the rate of 40 per hour. You can't even remember what you did. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Random Small City Portals
- Portal:Alhambra, California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Boca Raton, Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) pop 7800
- Portal:New Rochelle, New York ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:City of Bankstown ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (city no longer exists)
- Portal:Aylesbury ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Alhambra for example is a nice California town with 83,000 people. Boca Raton, New Rochelle and Aylesbury are similar sized. No evident reason for these places to have a portal. The world of articles is the predictable pages on the high school, the school district, a road that is partly in the city, and for some reason a pizza chain for Alhambra. Sets a bad precedent for creating portals on smaller cities. Anyone is welcome to bundle in other small city portals. There are a bunch of them. WP:X3 as drafted does not apply to everything here as different creators. Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong keep — There is no rule on the importance of a topic, or size of a city, for portals; likewise there is no rule for notability based on a city's size, we include all populated places as part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer (WP:5P). This MfD breaks the very first pillar. There is also a strong push toward highlighting local communities better on Wikipedia, like Wiki Loves Your Community or the MonmouthpediA project. These efforts should be lauded, not attacked with MfDs.
- In the case of Briarcliff Manor, I spent countless hours developing 20 or so articles on the village into GAs and FAs. I created the portal (which looked better before automation came in), and I strongly believe portals are the most reader-friendly avenue for exploring a topic. If readers wanted to explore the other 20 articles on Briarcliff, where else would they go? Not all of them are linked from the main article, and they're not going to understand categories and subcategories. Portals give them an immersive experience of images, facts, articles, dates, bios, and more, that is much more useful to a new reader than anything else here. ɱ (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- 4127 page views for the head article vs 125 page views for the portal suggests readers find the article far more reader friendly. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not in any way a logical method for determining reader-friendliness. ɱ (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- how so? If readers found portals useful we would see a lot more usage, yet all portals get minimal usage. 125 page views is actually pretty high for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're gunning for another proposal for mass-deletion of portals, which is not what this MfD is about, and that proposal just recently failed. Anyway, page views are widely influenced by accessibility - if the portal was by the lede like some other key links, it would get a much higher readership. Instead it's far, far down the article, near the bottom, and doesn't even display on the app or mobile version, which are increasingly becoming the predominant methods to read Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you think readership is low, look at New York City, which has 496,000 views vs 2,400 for its portal (.5%) vs 3% for Briarcliff, six times the relative amount. ɱ (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:POG "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" Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- A guideline that I don't have to follow. I am the portal maintainer of the Briarcliff portal; the other ones I'm not certain of. It still is counter to WP:5P that Wikipedia acts as a gazetteer for all communities, and thus communities inherently have a right to articles and therefore should have a right to organize themselves with categories, portals, navboxes, everything that larger communities should. I should bring this up to the movement of Wikipedians who actively write and advocate for expansion of community articles, because this just seems biased against smaller towns and cities, which makes no sense. ɱ (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:POG "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" Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- how so? If readers found portals useful we would see a lot more usage, yet all portals get minimal usage. 125 page views is actually pretty high for a portal. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not in any way a logical method for determining reader-friendliness. ɱ (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- 4127 page views for the head article vs 125 page views for the portal suggests readers find the article far more reader friendly. Legacypac (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(←) notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state), Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals as relevant WikiProjects. ɱ (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. The fact is, we have guidelines for these, and they say portals should be for large subject areas, and these portals don't meet that. Community consensus has been clearly shown to be against creating articles for minor topics like these. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- If I spent hours creating a visual guide to the articles I spent days writing, and then 4,000 people viewed and used it, I'd say that's a success, and not something to toss out, using arbitrary standards of cities worthy and unworthy of organizational tools like portals. Where's the line? 8,000 people, 80,000, 800,000? 8 million? ɱ (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Where's the precedents you're citing here? ɱ (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- What's really going on here is that a small group of editors wish to choose these things on behalf of the rest of us and are aggressively gaming process to that effect, hence this and related XFDs. With no input whatsoever from the editors who have worked on the articles in question, Portal:University of Alaska Fairbanks was recently created. Considering that there's no portal on the University of Alaska as a whole, I wouldn't call this a broad enough topic for a separate portal. Moreover, most subarticles related to UAF are substubs or stubs which have seen little improvement, with many created by COI editors. The exception is the article on the ice hockey team, which suffers from the same fanboy POV that far too many ice hockey-related articles suffer from. Seeing a portal like that suggests yet another move towards the encyclopedia's content consisting of what certain editors like or don't like instead of anything remotely resembling collaboration or broad editor interest. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
All inhabited place Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019. You can see the arguments made
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- USCounties only got 7 votes, not nearly a true wide vote.
- Districts of India was semi-automatic, not curated or with a wide scope.
- Neighborhoods in Portland is a strawman, I'm not talking about neighborhoods.
- Allen Park and the related portals were all automatic, not curated or with a wide scope.
- Agoura Hulls had a shameful single vote. That should not fly.
- Benito Juárez likewise with three votes is shameful.
- Lents is another neighborhood, a strawman argument.
- Ankaran, with only three votes, is a shameful close as well.
- These aren't examples. They're mockeries. ɱ (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- 7 votes is really good for an MfD, and if all 3 votes on some of the less well-attended MfDs are for "delete", closing as delete is quite reasonable. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- As well, per this deletion discussion, WP:POG has established the precedent that portals should at least contain/connect to about 20 articles. Briarcliff Manor has at least 26, meaning that it passes the threshold for minimum number of articles. ɱ (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The MfDs listed are all of the ones on inhabited places as noted. A town is smaller/narrower scope than a county. 20 articles is a rock bottom minimum part of WP:POG - something that has not passed an RFC or gained widespread community support. There is now a prohibition on mass creation that will stand until a new guideline is approved by the community. Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're still being misleading; other voters will just see the list of precedents and be like, "oh, sure, delete", but almost none apply, and you even stated in one that you were spreading out the nominations (not several portals in one nom) in order to give the impression of more nominations against small city portals. That's essentially fraud. As for widespread community support, clearly nothing here needs or has that. We don't have any requirements for the notability of portals, there are no limits to the size, number, or scope of portals. As you stated, Briarcliff Manor passes POG as broad enough to warrant a portal. ɱ (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can retract that false statement/personal attack please. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please learn the distinction between personal attacks and simple debate. I called your act fraud because I view it that way. I am not insulting any personal aspect of you, name-calling, or anything. Simply, your act of spreading out nominations and then listing them all in further deletion debates is deception for your own gain, to further your own beliefs. ɱ (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep — Here we have yet another case of the usual WP:OWN editors attempting to take over as much of the encyclopedia as they possibly can while making no effort of their own to actually improve any of the content involved. Looks like I correctly predicted where the automation of portals was taking us. Just months ago, the nominator was throwing around the term "collaboration" while at the same time attempting to stifle my efforts at collaboration elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Time to put a stop to nonsense like this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep:
- These portals meet Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, draw from an appropriate selection of articles, and serves as useful navigational pages. Furthermore, WP:X3 is mentioned in the nomination, but this is only a proposal, and is not an actual criteria for speedy deletion. North America1000 03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry these fail WP:POG portal guidelines, even as loose as they are. X3 will pass, and should have been closed already frankly. Otherwise I expect all 5500 portals will be subjected to MfD which is a big waste of time.
- A comment above suggests portals should be linked from the lede of articles. Why would we create such circular links? If portals are a navigational aid why does a person already on the article need to go to a portal to get back to the article? The article link system is a proven successful way to navigate. Portal view stats show very few readers find them useful. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section. To aid in this, the portal should be associated with a WikiProject to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal." The 20 articles is not even in the guideline it is something project members have mentioned. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is totally out of date. That guideline was never followed. People just made portals on what interested them. And, so by the time of the RfC WP:ENDPORTALS in 2018, portals represented a wide range of scope, yet the community decided to keep them all. That set of 1500 portals is the representative set. Portals of similar scope to the portals in that set are okay by the community. — The Transhumanist 20:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- "A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section. To aid in this, the portal should be associated with a WikiProject to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal." The 20 articles is not even in the guideline it is something project members have mentioned. Legacypac (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – This MfD attempts to override community consensus. The community decided to keep Portal:Briarcliff in the RfC WP:ENDPORTALS, and all other portals. The approximately 1500 portals that existed at that time, including Portal:Briarcliff, represented a wide range of scope; some had over a hundred entries in them, while others had just a few. Yet, the community decided to keep them all. The portals guideline has not been updated to reflect the community consensus established there. WikiProjects should never have been included in the guideline, as that violates WP:OWN. As coverage grows on these subjects, so will these portals' coverage of it, automatically. Also, the Portals WikiProject is dedicated to improving portal design further, including how and from where entries are automatically gathered. As the tech improves, so will the individual portals. — The Transhumanist 20:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The RfC decided that portals (as a type of pages) can continue to exist. It did not conclude (or even discuss) that every single portal which existed at that time may exist and can never be deleted, which is what you seem to argue. The community did not decide "to keep them all", as you claim: the community decided not to delet them all, which is a completely different concept. You seem to have learned nothing at all from all the recent discussions about portals (nor from the RfC, in fact), and still haev a blind belief in the superiority of your technological solutions, even if they have been shown again and again to create serious problems, and even though it has become clear that many portals where you changed the earlier, manual versions to your automated ones have become a lot worse in the process. Fram (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Given the total cluelessness and/or blatant misstatement about the WP:ENDPORTALS RFC how should we be dealing with TTH continued involvement in portals? It sounds like he believes every preexisting portal prior to the RFC is now protected from deletion. That fits with his insistence on tagging each one with a deletion tag like we were discussing deletion of each page. For a big concept guy who insists on being the guy who organizing the whole of Wikipedia, I'm surprised TTH is confusing Meta discussion with specific discussion of individual pages. Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the new ones like Portal:Aylesbury, discuss the remainder separately. Fram (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please can you specify which you are voting for and which against? Thanks ɱ (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:Alhambra, California, Portal:Boca Raton, Florida and Portal:Aylesbury. Exclude the others from this nomination (note: this isn't necessarily a vote against deletion of those, just that I think we do better in keeping the auto-generated ones and the others separate at MfD). Fram (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please can you specify which you are voting for and which against? Thanks ɱ (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:University of Fort Hare
- Portal:University of Fort Hare ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Pointless zero-portal for the University of Fort Hare in South Africa. As explained below, it's basically a portal-to-nowhere.
The Category:University of Fort Hare contains no articles other than the head article. There are more biogs in the sub-Category:People associated with the University of Fort Hare, but it is doubtful whether they would be a useful addition to the portal.
The associated Template:University of Fort Hare contains only the head article, the chancellor and vice-chancellor, plus links to the people categories.
The complete absence of any article about the university other than the head article means that the only "selected article" in the portal is the generic page Chancellor (education), which doesn't even mention Fort Hare.
This looks to me like a WP:P2 speedy, but I hope that this discussion will remain open long enough for its creator @The Transhumanist to come and explain why they ever created this portal in the first place. Surely TTH must have been aware that it had zero content? I will leave a message on their talk. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete this one has no articles except Chancellor (education). I clicked and clicked to see what articles it featured and there are none. Fails even the absurdly low 20 article Portal guideline set by the Portal enthusiasts by 20 articles. WP:X3 should be a thing. Legacypac (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Notification: I have posted[5] at User talk:The Transhumanist asking the creator to explain the creation of this portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, does not even have any articles for the automation at the moment. Only scrapes past WP:CSD#P2 if we count the alumni (which the portal doesn't use). Portals should add some value to something, this one doesn't. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have since changed the selected articles slideshow to include academics and some alumni of the University. Gazamp (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Philippine Women's University
- Portal:Philippine Women's University ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another pointless micro-portal, on the Philippine Women's University. The Category:Philippine Women's University contains only 4 articles plus this portal.
There are 7 more articles in the sub-Category:Philippine Women's University alumni, but it is doubtful whether they would be a useful addition to the portal.
The assiciated Template:Philippine Women's University is actually far more useful for navigation, because it appears on the relevant pages rather than requiring navigation to a separate page. So this isn't even a glorified navbox; it's a massively degraded navbox.
This pointless, uncurated portalspam is yet another product of The Transhumanist's batch-creation sprees. Now that it is abundantly clear that there is a strong community consensus against this portalspam, it is deplorable that TTH is not assisting in the cleanup of the mega-mess they made. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete fails the Wikiproject's own guidelines of 20 pages. I've suggested raising the WP:P2 level from 3 pages to 20 pages as everyone seems to agree that is the bare minimum to justify a portal. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with Legacypac on expanding definition of useless portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Christina Rahm Cook
- Draft:Christina Rahm Cook ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Christina Rahm Cook (2) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Two copies of this autobiography have been submitted via sockpupppetry.
The subject may or may not be notable, but these drafts are being written to praise the subject rather than describe her neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, when a draft is numbered (2), it is almost always done by an AFC reviewer moving a sandbox, and that was the case here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete both. Needs WP:TNT if it stands a chance to be a decent article, not this resume. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete both per nom. I prefer to leave the dup in userspace sandbox so we can just blank it Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support deletion per nom. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
March 15, 2019
Portal:Dmitri Mendeleev
- Portal:Dmitri Mendeleev ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another pointless micro-portal, on scientist Dmitri Mendeleev. The Category:Dmitri Mendeleev contains only 6 articles, some of which may not even beling there (e.g. it is debatable whether Mendeleev is WP:DEFINING charcateristic of the Periodic table, since he was one of several scientists who developed it over the course of more than a century).
There are 7 more articles in the sub-Category:Chemical elements predicted by Dmitri Mendeleev, but it is doubtful whether they woukd be a useful addition to the portal.
This portal is over 4 months old. At the time of its creation, the guidline WP:PORTG clearly said portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers. If WP:WPPORT (of which this page's creator Gazamp advertises themselves as a member) functioned as anything other than a spam-generating cabal, they would long since have triaged it as way-below the minimum, and initiated its deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not enough content to warrant a portal, fails WP:PORTG --DannyS712 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete can't even follow their own amazingly loose guidelines. The article is how to lean about the subject. Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete even though he was a great scientist. By the way, chemists do consider him to be the father of the periodic table, because earlier efforts were just earlier efforts that illustrated the need for what Mendeleev did. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Even I have to agree here, that the portal serves very little function (although I do disagree to WP:WPPORT being called a 'spam-generating cabal'). I think this might have been one of my earlier efforts... Thank you for highlighting it; I'll go back and revisit some of my other early portals to check their relevance too. Gazamp (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - No portals for individual themes.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Too narrow. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Evangelical Christianity
- Portal:Evangelical Christianity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nomination based on "Many of these portals that are being nominated look way better then Portal:Evangelical Christianity. This christian portal is so ugly, I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion. A portal shouldn't look like a chopped up list. Catfurball (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)" Legacypac 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Looks more like an outline than a portal. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with Catfurball this one is objectively ugly. It is also outside the scope of WP:X3 Legacypac (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral at this time. Unless a technical argument can be made for deletion, I won't try to assess because I will abstain as considering evangelical Christianity to be the wrong road to the right destination. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The perceived beauty of a portal is not a reason to keep or delete. If there is not a technical reason, I can't see any reason to delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- How about the seemingly random and incomplete list of topics included? There are plenty of Christian singers so why select the few that are there, especially since they are not particularly identified as Evangelical (never heard an artist classed as an Evangelical Christian artist, only as a Christian artist). Same issue with the schools and humanitarian sections. Even the list of denominations is seriously too short. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per the rationale of Walter Görlitz above. See also: WP:IMPERFECT. Concerns such as those above can be addressed by WP:COPYEDITING. North America1000 21:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly Delete This portal doesn't even look like a portal, but a list that looks like a blue skunk. And not many pictures. And plus the person who created this portal is an Evangelical christian, which is breaking Wikipedia rules.Catfurball (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- *Keep. Project connected with the portal that exists in different languages (German since 2004, Russian since 2006, French since 2014, Spanish since 2017, Portuguese since 2017, English since 2017). Thank you very much. --ServB1 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable argument for an article to exist - not this ugly portal. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Several categories and articles (Category Evangelicalism which is a synonym for evangelical Christianity) are linked to the portal.--ServB1 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is this topic is not a defined branch of Christianity or a denomination but more a loosely defined grouping of denominations. The portal assigns bands and singers and other random topics to the portal. It's editorial without the normal oversight checks and balances of a highly trafficed and edited article. Bad choice for a portal topic badly executed. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable argument for an article to exist - not this ugly portal. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Since when did beauty become a deletion criterion ? Maybe I should MFD this page (on 1 April), it looks ugly and dated.... << FR (mobileUndo) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. "This christian portal is so ugly" is not a valid deletion criteria. "Objectively ugly" is an oxymoron. "The person who created this portal is an Evangelical christian, which is breaking Wikipedia rules" is not a valid deletion criteria. (WTF?) The concerns about the content linked in the portal are best addressed through the normal editorial process, not through deletion. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete This is an outline, not a portal. Many of the links on the outline aren't about Evangelical Christianity, but about Christianity in general (Christmas, pastor, etc.). I don't know if the proper level is Portal:Religion or Portal:Christianity but Portal:Evangelical Christianity definitely isn't it. Even aside from the outline format or the color scheme or the article selection, there aren't enough high-quality articles about Evangelical Christianity to justify a portal in the first place. Leviv ich 22:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Battle for Dream Island
- Draft:Battle for Dream Island ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Since we have been told "YOU GOT TO DO THIS" [6] and we have already spent a lot of time at AfC, bring this for discussion to get it deleted Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - The author pushed too hard at AFC Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly does, and will likely not, pass WP:GNG David.moreno72 06:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Now at help desk again with "I WANT THIS". Not sure what that's supposed to mean. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Old business
March 15, 2019
Portal:Winemaking
- Portal:Winemaking ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Viticulture ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Automated navbox based mass produced portals that essentially duplicate longstanding Portal:Wine. Created by another user so outside the scope of WP:X3. Raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crabapples when Portal:Grapes came up. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Maybe the scope of X3 needs expansion. Anyway, this is unnecessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Unnecessary. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - A perfect example of how a new automated portal is much worse than the original manual one (Portal:Wine). All but identical scope, so redundant. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect / possibly merge both to Portal:Wine. North America1000 18:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or merge. Fail WP:POG as unnecessary. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect or Merge to Portal:Wine per Northamerica1000. We do not need two wine portals. AmericanAir88(talk) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see a compelling reason for a merge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Fram (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect both to Portal:Wine, useful search terms but there isn't a need for three separate portals on such closely related topics. Incidentally the possibility to merge portals like these rather than deleting them is exactly why the currently proposed X3 is too broad, not too narrow. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Hudson River
- Portal:Hudson River ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another automated portal. This one largely duplicates long standing Portal:Hudson Valley aka Hudson River Valley. Includes a photo of a random little bird because the photo says it was taken by the river (not visable in the photo) and a photo of the Erie Canal in Amsterdam, New York which is a community that is on the Mohawk River, not the Hudson. One of the DYKs is about a painter from the Hudson River School which is kinda sorta related to the river topic if you stretch it hard. Selected articles include Amsterdam, New York (again not on the Hudson River), a couple of random creeks that drain into rivers that drain into the Hudson, and some other random pages without any obvious close connection to the River topic. This is inferior to the useful presentation at Hudson River that will provide real useful info to the reader, not a bunch of randomly selected bit of info. Note this page will not be subject to WP:X3 but comes from the same tools used. Legacypac (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Can the portal be allowed to drift down the Hudson River into Long Island Sound?Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The above !vote lacks any policy-based qualification for deletion. North America1000 18:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Policy-based rationale is difficult for portals. Basically there’s WP:PCSD, WP:DP, and WP:POG (guideline). — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – Regarding
"this one largely duplicates long standing Portal:Hudson Valley"
, this is patently false. There is very little duplication at all. This portal focuses specifically on Hudson River related topics, and serves as a functional navigational aid for readers who choose to utilize Wikipedia using portals. Topical fine tuning can be easily accomplished by customizing the portal to omit topics that are not related enough. I would do this now, but since it's nominated for deletion, I will wait to see if the portal is retained. I wouldn't want to waste my time improving a portal that may subsequently be deleted, which would be counterproductive. North America1000 18:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC) - Delete a duplicate portal. Either Portal:Hudson Valley or Portal:Hudson River can drift down the river into Long Island Sound. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as largely duplicate subject. Fram (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
We may have little policy to rely on but the precident is piling up:
Portal MfD Results
- Merge and redirect with Portal:Hudson Valley. If anything this is a more likely search term for the existing portal, and while the scope is not identical they are closely related so merging is the sensible way forward. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete (and delete Portal:Hudson Valley, too). This is a portal based on geographic proximity, and they're both in the same geographic proximity. To say we need one portal for the river, and one portal for the valley surrounding the river... come on... There are a lot of rivers in the world, they all have valleys, and the Hudson isn't even a particularly notable one (compare to the Nile or the Amazon). We shouldn't have portals based on geographic locations, as it turns Wikipedia into a travel guide. Next, businesses in the area will want their articles included in the portal. Leviv ich 22:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
March 13, 2019
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gregg Kevin Jann |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete . Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Draft:Gregg Kevin Jann
Nearly incomprehensible draft. Submitted three times. Declined twice, and rejected once, but the rejection was reverted without discussion. The next step after a rejection is ignored is nomination for deletion, so here we are. This will never be an encyclopedic article. It is poorly sourced and does not make a parseable credible claim of significance. As AngusWoof says, it reads as if it was copied from a biography or biography web site, but it is a florid overwritten biographical sketch. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC) It was AugustTip's first attempt at biography on Wikipedia- it was not copied. The draft is about perhaps a Black Listed Person by media like newsprint or politco/religio, even though Gregg Kevin Jann is printed sometimes AS YOU SAW the references of. It could be by government that makes few references for Gregg, for he was never an inmate of any kind. Gregg Jann worked and is at the bare bolts end of drafting Prop 63, California's Mental Health Services Act, and I think Wikipedia gives credit like most people to 2 state Senators who simply Endorsed this legislation - did not get it started or designed it as Gregg Jann did. Gregg Jann is an unknown person, he did things not covered in media as he should have- like he did strategize a union fight to win labor rights signing a first labor contract and labor rights for psychiatric disabled consumers - not a glamorous life but he should be noted in Wikipedia. AugustTip appreciates advice from editors, this Gregg K. Jann must be in Wikipedia for the good that he has done - he is honest and believable- media nor law do not cover "crazy designer," if that is him in references. AugustTip emailed this draft to an IP lawyer in San Francisco, to go over writing that what you want. I won't submit again without a more perfected copy, it is modest of what goes into public view. That of a man who claims to have been a Reagan speaker, the AIDS namer, and one internet source - all not yet paid or cared about for Black List as AugustTip sees it- we can leave that wild stuff out but the Subway runaway is local color and how they can know you!! Please wait to delete the draft - I'm working on an important person who affected history.AugustTip (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)AugustTip
The AIDS name has never been credited, and Gregg Jann tried to credit it in his name in A Jann Plan. He went to the Sonoma County Medical Association and he heard it was a deadly communicable disease obviously, and it is a threat to him if his doctor doesn't protect well the blood supply and the gay community near where he lives does not spill his red blood in fights. His IP lawyer is not a threat to Wikipedia, he is to enhance credibility and writing of what he can represent. The local San Francisco area may be volatile and angry at AIDS getting attention and assumed care to merely a namer as Gregg Jann does on his blog. AugustTip may delete Gregg Jann claim for AIDS namer like the whole health industry is corrupt, as Gregg Jann waited for his paraprofessional counseling credentials to materialize. This is like a lot of IP claims Gregg Jann does - was he classified, stolen, or just too new? Maybe Wikipedia would be proud of a scoop if lawyer backed AugustTip up.198.102.103.102 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)AugustTip
198.102.103.100 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)AugustTip - third person is the language of Wikipedia.org, not matter who the expert is or who is editing the article. Is this AIDS namer portion too self explanatory, and too controversial for inclusion in the encyclopedia as notice is little available? Gregg Jann is newsworthy, and I am working on an article with credibility for Gregg Jann is great unknown sources in our history as many industries according to A Jann Plan, some other of his books. AugustTip (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)AugustTip: reference in Chico State Alum Magazine with Gregg Jann's picture in Chico Statements:https://www.csuchico.edu/chicostatements/2012-spring/alumni-notes-index.shtml Is this notable enough counting as one reference for degree and career?, with lots of competition in a school size of 15,000 students and 125 years of alumni ranked pretty good in public schools. He also went and graduated from Sonoma State University. AugustTip (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)AugustTip found these book review references of 2 of his books at his Rose Dog Books publisher:http://rosedogbookstore.com/van-goghing-gregg-1/#product-reviews; http://rosedogbookstore.com/a-jann-plan-creative-origins-advocacy-teach-peace-and-creative-accountability/#product-reviews These say what these 2 books are notable for, that Gregg Jann is a legend in the mental health field and stood for election for Character Ed in schools as previous references proved. I don't know what a book with a beginning chapter on stopping a mass murderer in the first person as a teenager as a footnote would help prove a man with a health business license from Santa Rosa, CA for his health advancements that should be recorded and documented in Wikipedia, but the writing of the A Jann Plan review shows 2 cases about people for not getting media coverage even locally for substantial things Jann did in history like a Black List that we should be brave in writing and clear up. NOTE: Rusty Selix gets a footnote credit to Mayor of Sacramento as co-writer of the Mental health Services Act here in Wikipedia, and AugustTip met with the new Sonoma County Mental health Director on a "Credit Issue" and to call the Darrel Steinberg Institute of Sacramento about Mr. Jann and this is where Rusty Selix is honored. Maybe this organization can keep us abreast this week if I do it right. I believe in Gregg Jann!!
|
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Peyman Rajabi |
---|
The result of the discussion was: delete . Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Draft:Peyman Rajabi
These poorly sourced poorly written drafts are being repeatedly submitted. My inquiries as to paid editing have not been answered. The resubmission cycle is going around and around and getting nowhere. If the subject passes sports notability and if the proper disclosures have been made, then perhaps the author needs help. If the subject does not pass notability or there is undisclosed paid editing, then these drafts need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Fruit Portals
- Portal:Crabapples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Apples ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Grapes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Citrus ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Portal:Strawberries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Very poor version of Malus (Crabapple is a redirect) that requires scrolling or refreshing to see the photos displayed on the mainspace page. Built off the nav box in about 1 to 2 minutes it provides no new content, just repackages existing content in a less informative way. Kind of a Wikipedia for people that only want a little bit of info they likely already know (crabapples are trees that bear fruit?). This topic has no Wikiproject dedicated to it, it is just a random family of 35 species of trees. Legacypac (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Useless. CoolSkittle (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - Since crabapples are related to the domestic apple (not merely with a common name), there is even less reason for a need for an extra portal. I don't think we need Portal:Apples, but that isn't the topic here, so delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless repackaging of Crabapple. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Bundled Portal:Apples. Several admins are intent in delaying X3 for weeks (in hopes they can get the discussion to swing against?) They are ignoring that 143 Portals have been deleted through MFD (with zero automated Portals retained) and the AN discussion has been very clear, as was the Village Pump discussion. Might as well continue pushing Portals through MFD a few at at time. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the apples portal too, and Portal:Grapes could also be deleted (non TTH portal so not X3 eligible). CoolSkittle (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep there is nothing wrong with Portal:Apples; Portal:Crabapples; Portal:Citrus and Portal:Grapes they are very good.Catfurball (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate on "very good"? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- add Portal:Grapes per User:CoolSkittle Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Grapes. Has plenty of content, including, but not limited to, content transcluded from Template:Grape varieties and Template:Hybrid grape varieties. Comparing the Grapes portal to the Crabapples portal is an apples to oranges comparison. No rationale for deletion has been provided for this portal, only the Crabapples portal. The nomination atop is about the Crabapples portal, not the Strawberries portal. This portal conforms with Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. North America1000 08:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The templates used to build Portal:Grapes are woefully incomplete. Wikipedia has 793 articles under Category:Grape varieties. There are also Malus species with articles that aren't included in the navbox used to build the Crabapple portal. Portal:Crabapples seem to be a blatant case of building a portal just because a navbox exists that can seed it without stopping to think whether a portal is actually useful or necessary. Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a work in progress though. Where's the policy that templates have to be complete? What came first, the chicken or the egg? North America1000 21:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank-you for mentioning Oranges. I've bundled Portal:Citrus which suffers from the same issues. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Northamerica1000 also created Portal:Viticulture and Portal:Winemaking which overlap quite a bit. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portal:Winemaking is a perfect example of an inferior fork of a manual portal we've had for years and that actually has interesting content: Portal:Wine. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Winemaking to discuss these two. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Suggestion Not all portals that are incomplete should be deleted, instead they should be added to Category:Portals needing attention. Many of these portals that are being nominated look way better then Portal:Evangelical Christianity. This christian portal is so ugly, I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated for deletion. A portal shouldn't look like a chopped up list.Catfurball (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Citrus. Has plenty of content, and serves as a functional navigational means for Wikipedia's readers. No rationale for deletion has been provided for this portal, only the Crabapples portal. The nomination atop is about the Crabapples portal, not the Strawberries portal. This portal conforms with Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. North America1000 22:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Using the date-range chosen below by @Northamerica1000, here's the page views 12/02/2019 – 12/03/2019:
- So this portal was used by only 0.45% of those who viewed the head article. That's less than 1 in 200 readers.
- As with every other portal I have checked, the stats show that readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the head article for navigation. The usual ratio is, as in this case, more than two orders of magnitude. Or to put it another way, for every 10,000 readers who visited the article, only 45 visited the portal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Apples. A bountiful amount of content, and serves as a functional navigational means for Wikipedia's readers. No rationale for deletion has been provided for this portal, only the Crabapples portal. The nomination atop is about the Crabapples portal, not the Strawberries portal. This portal conforms with Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. North America1000 22:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop voting multiple times. I'm bundling in Strawberries as mentioned at AN. Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop bundling nominations and instead nominate separately. The portals are not all the same. Cheers, North America1000 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stop voting multiple times. I'm bundling in Strawberries as mentioned at AN. Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge – Portal:Crabapples to Portal:Apples. WP:PRESERVE appropriate content. North America1000 22:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. There is zero purpose to creating individual portals for individual kinds of fruit; the scope is far too narrow, more like an overpuffed navbox than a useful tool (to paraphrase BrownHairedGirl very broadly). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is a purpose. Portals function as a navigational tool for readers. For example, Portal:Apples has received 467 page views between 2/12/2019 and 3/12/2019. Enabling Wikipedia's readers to access content is the purpose. Also, are we going to start pinging users that have been for deletion of other portals in other discussions to the new discussions, as has occurred directly above? Comes across as a bit WP:CANVASSy, imo. North America1000 22:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea turning to statistics, NorthA. Tho not good for your position.
- The head article Apple received 96,674 pageviews in the same period. So this portal was used by only 0.48% of those who viewed the head article. That's less than 1 in 200 readers.
- Nearly every time a portal is discussed, someone pops up like @Northamerica1000 to parrot something to the effect of "navigation!!! non-zero pageviews!!! your opinion only!!!". And every time the stats show that readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the head article for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- And so my concerns about potential canvassing above may now be coming into fruition. North America1000 23:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, regarding,
"every time the stats show that readers overwhelmingly prefer to use the head article for navigation"
, under this rationale, every navigational template on Wikipedia would also then qualify for deletion upon this narrow premise. Absurd. North America1000 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)- Having been pinged, I have not cast a !vote, and will not cast a !vote.
- But I sure will point out the folly of your statistics, and leave other editors to draw their own conclusions about how to !vote.
- And your comparison with navigational templates is utter nonsense. Since a navigational templates is transcluded into every page to which it links, its pageviews are equal to the sum of the pageviews of those pages. The only
absurd
thing in that point is your failure to understand how navigational templates work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)- Actually, navigation templates are not transcluded into every page to which they link, as evidenced by the many additions I have made to articles through the years that had the article linked in the template, but lacked the template in the article. Also, I have created many templates, know all about transclusion, etc., so your assumption regarding my knowledge is quite erroneous, and unnecessary. But nevermind my folly, you're the expert, right? North America1000 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, navigation templates are not transcluded into every page to which they link ...
Um, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (part of a guideline). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)- That's great, um, but does not mean that editors always follow instructions at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as per my comment above. North America1000 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I pinged BHG because I quoted her and I habitually ping people when I quote them (some people don't like to be mentioned without being notified of being mentioned, so I got into the habit of doing it to everyone). I mistakenly thought she'd already commented in this discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, Northamerica1000, I don't claim to be an expert on it. I asserted basic understanding on on navigational templates work, and where they are suppose to be transcluded. If you
have created many templates, know all about transclusion, etc.
then why did you make spurious claims about the pageviews of a navbox? - And I note that when challenged, you didn't disagree with my basic point that a navbox is designed to be loaded with every page it links to, so there is no point counting standalone pageviews 'cos that's not how its contents are viewed. By contrast, portals are viewable only by navigating to a separate page ... and as the stats show, less than 0.5% of readers do so.
- That's now twice in this one subthread that you have posted a factually misleading claim, and each time you have reply with bluster and deflection. That's not the way to build consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, Northamerica1000, I don't claim to be an expert on it. I asserted basic understanding on on navigational templates work, and where they are suppose to be transcluded. If you
- I pinged BHG because I quoted her and I habitually ping people when I quote them (some people don't like to be mentioned without being notified of being mentioned, so I got into the habit of doing it to everyone). I mistakenly thought she'd already commented in this discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's great, um, but does not mean that editors always follow instructions at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, as per my comment above. North America1000 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, navigation templates are not transcluded into every page to which they link, as evidenced by the many additions I have made to articles through the years that had the article linked in the template, but lacked the template in the article. Also, I have created many templates, know all about transclusion, etc., so your assumption regarding my knowledge is quite erroneous, and unnecessary. But nevermind my folly, you're the expert, right? North America1000 23:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Navigation templates are used to link to articles that are related or interrelated to a main topic. Your logic asserts that readers prefer to navigate from main articles, and implies that portals are inferior based upon page view percentages. It could be interpreted that your implication therefore extends to other alternate means of navigation, such as templates. I made no mention of page views of templates, you did. My comment was regarding templates that are existent in articles, not page views to the template pages. Some readers go through a succession of articles using the links in navigation templates, and some of the more obscure related topic pages listed within a template may not receive as many page views as the main article, yet the use of the template on those lesser-viewed pages still serves a functional purpose. As such, lesser-viewed pages can serve a functional purpose, just as portals, while receiving lesser views than main articles, can also serve a functional purpose. Also, portals will always receive less page views than main articles, in part because they serve to complement the main article, not exist as the main article. Anyway, hope that clarifies my commentary for you, and have a nice day. North America1000 00:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Navboxes are a componant to the articles they serve and not meant to be viewed alone. Portals based on nav boxes are folly - the base was never designed for the structure above it. We don't build factories an house foundations and we don't build navboxes only to discover someone has abused their purpose. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree:
- From WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia."
- From WP:PORTAL: "Aiding navigation - portals are one of Wikipedia's navigation subsystems, designed to help users find their way around the vast amount of knowledge on Wikipedia to material within a particular subject."
- In some ways, the purposes are both templates and portals are virtually identical. Such close complementary purposes, and per this, using templates to populate portals, is hardly a "folly". It actually makes quite a bit of sense. North America1000 00:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. If we must have portals (e.g. to give readers an alternative to mainpage) then they should be for (really) broad subject areas (e.g. maybe Food). Even Northamerica1000 admits it serves virtually identical purpose to navboxes (which are much more useful, accepted etc). DexDor (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Portal:Strawberries. No rationale for deletion has been provided for this portal, only the Crabapples portal. The nomination atop is about the Crabapples portal, not the Strawberries portal. This portal conforms with Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines. North America1000 16:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Using bolded votes 4 times in the same discussion is against some rule I presume. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. !voting multiple times for the same page is not allowed. Your nomination consists of five separate pages. As such, multiple !votes are allowed. Seriously, if only one !vote were allowed, I wouldn't be able to suggest the merge above that I have suggested for the Crabapples portal. Please consider stopping the wikilawyering. North America1000 16:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Using bolded votes 4 times in the same discussion is against some rule I presume. Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- See also: WP:TRAINWRECK and WP:MULTIAFD, where it states, "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by single purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith." North America1000 19:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Mix:
- Merge Portal:Crabapples into Portal:Apples as this is a subtopic.
- Keep Portal:Apples - there is plenty content about this topic to support a portal, especially when crabapples are merged in.
- Keep Portal:Grapes - there is more than enough content here for decent portal, given the significant cultural history of grapes and their contemporary economic importance.
- Keep Portal:Citrus - this is the sort of high-level topic that we should have portals on, rather than individual ones about oranges, lemons, etc.
- Broaden Portal:Strawberries to Portal:Berries and merge other small portals like Portal:Blueberries, Portal:Blackberries with it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all Endless proliferation of portals for ever more minor topics is a thoroughly bad idea. Were these agreed with a clear consensus by an active WikiProject that will maintain them? No. So out with them! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merge crabapples into apples, weak keep the others because the topics are wide enough. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment to closer careful with the multiple votes from the same editors here. Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment to closer – Multiple !votes are perfectly allowed for bundled nominations. See also: WP:TRAINWRECK. North America1000 22:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
.:Put all your votes in one paragraph. Don't make silly distictions between apples and oranges Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not making any "silly distinctions", I'm making it explicitly what my reconsiderations are for these very disparate portals. I cannot see any evidence that anyone has made multiple recommendations for the same page - remember also that this is a discussion not a vote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I notice that another user above has !voted for deletion multiple times, yet, for whatever reason, they are not badgered for doing so. Why is that? North America1000 00:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep all but crabapples, to merge into apples. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all too small, even when bundled; no original content; seems like just a repackaging of elements. These really are puffed up navboxes. Leviv ich 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
March 12, 2019
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Earlier today, @Legacypac: tagged a number of userboxes for speedy deletion. I reviewed the pages and declined to delete them, but left a note at User talk:Legacypac rather than removing the tags. Subsequently, @RHaworth: came along and deleted them. There have been objections by @Godsy: at User talk:RHaworth, and some of the deletions were subsequently self-reverted.
These pages were the discussion of a [deletion review] some 13 years ago, at the height of the userbox fiasco. Deletion was overturned on technical grounds.
These pages are part of a long-simmering dispute, see Wikipedia:Userbox migration and Wikipedia:Userboxes for background if you're not familiar.
The full list of extant userboxes in this individual's userspace is:
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarchist 1
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Communist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Death Penalty
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Leftist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/NPD DEU
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Philosophy
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political Science
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Politically Incorrect
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Rightist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Stalinist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Totalitarian
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Trotskyist
The full list of deleted userboxes created by this user is:
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarcho Syn
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Bad Faith
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Capitalist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Communist star
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Leninist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Libertarian
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Lib Soc
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Monarchist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nationalist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Nat Soc (Nazis - deleted by discussion)
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Darwinism
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Gun Ctl
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/No Marxism
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Pink
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political-Philosophical
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political-Philosophical/Death Penalty
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political-Philosophical/Fascist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political-Philosophical/Political Science
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political-Philosophical/Socialist sickle
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political-Philosophical/Socialist star
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Roma Indep
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/SAC
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Soc Darwin
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Socialist hammer and sickle
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Socialist sickle
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Socialist star
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Taste
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Trotskyist 2
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/UBX War
Note that a few of these were deleted years ago, but most were deleted today.
Given the clear parallels in the nature of the userboxes, I believe that they should be treated similarly. While I do not have strong feelings about them, it is my recommendation to delete them. I believe that a full and transparent discussion is more important than the outcome, as this is a historically divisive area. UninvitedCompany 20:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:RHaworth is very liberal with speedy deletion of unimportant pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I strongly oppose deleting all of these userboxes in one bundled nomination. Several of the userboxes should likely be deleted, but I strongly oppose deleting all of the userboxes listed above [in one bundled nomination] and suggest individual nominations for specific objections. What is wrong with a user having a userbox that states ""This user is interested in philosophy. or "This user is interested in political science."? Many of the concerns raised in the original deletion discussion of User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist do not apply to all of the userboxes listed here. Note that some of the userboxes have transclusions on hundreds of userpages, showing they are not as "useless" as some may believe. I support a speedy restoration of the userboxes deleted today by User:RHaworth, so that they may undergo a deletion discussion. MarkZusab (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Specifically, I believe that User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Philosophy and User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Political Science should be kept. These do not promote a specific political view, do not promote a specific political party, do not provide a call for action, do not incite violence, do not use Wikipedia as a platform, do not have anything to do with Nazis, and do not cause controversy. They only state that a user is interested in the topics of philosophy or political science. I have no specific opinions on the rest of the userboxes at this time. MarkZusab (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete these are U5 material because this user made 129 total edits, all to userspace to create all these. They were never a contributor and not here to build wikipedia only to stir controversy. I noted the NAzi one that was redeleted by discussion. Legacypac (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Legacypac, I fail to see how WP:U5 applies here. These userboxes do not fall under the category of " Wikipedia:NOTWEBHOST". These are all userboxes, not use of Wikipedia as a web host. This does not fall under the category of WP:U5. Additionally, userboxes are specifically permitted, and intended, to be on userpages, further disqualifying this from U5 (see WP:User pages). MarkZusab (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know the identity of User:The Ministry of Truth but given their pattern of contribution they were surely involved here under some other name. I believe the userboxes they created were either copied from template space or were based on those in some other wiki. I do not believe they fit the intent of U5. U5 is intended to cover material wholly unrelated to Wikipedia. UninvitedCompany 02:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Needs wider advertising. This is a development on the ancient userbox war truce. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Possibly, every user with one of these transcluded to their userpage needs notification. Unless the nomination is to subst and delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: A number of the pages have been undeleted, and some have been re-deleted, since I compiled the list. UninvitedCompany 01:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep/Restore all except "Stalinist" and "Nat Soc" for obvious reasons. Why must we delete 40-odd good-faith userboxes because of two strongly objectionable ones? PrussianOwl (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and Restore. Per PrussianOwl above. I'd also like to specificilly request the restoration of User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Lib Soc and User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Anarcho Syn. The only ones that should not be allowed are the ones related to Tankies and Nazis. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
User:The Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js
- User:The Transhumanist/QuickPortal.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is the single click portal creation script. Here is a description of it [7]. This script has not been approved by WP:BAG and has been used in contravention of WP:MEATBOT by several users. Records show portal creation at the rate of 5 per minute/every 12 seconds using this script. I can't tag the script page as I'm not an Admin. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: - admins can't edit it either. Ask @The Transhumanist to add the tag, or get an iadmin (maybe post at WP:IAN?) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete As the various discussions about the results have shown, this is not a good thing to have live. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salt This should have never been made. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As with the lists of vital articles which we recently decided to keep, the problem is inappropriate usage, not the tool. We still have several important topics without portals, and last year's debate reached a consensus to keep the namespace. A significant minority of editors disagreed, but that does not entitle them to make portal creation more difficult and error-prone. Any witch hunt on tools also has a Streisand effect: I was previously unaware of this script, which looks very useful if used with care. Certes (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- It you use this script without both an RFC and WP:BAG approval you may well find yourself blocked. Legacypac (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning. I do not propose to use the script for the sort of mass page creation which might require approval. Certes (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just out of mild curiosity, what are some of the "several important topics without portals", given we have several thousand very minor topics with them? Of course, there are other ways of creating new portals if they are really needed, which I rather doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnbod, they're using a different definition of "important topic" to everyone else; to this particular tag-team, every topic listed at WP:VITAL is an "important topic" and needs a corresponding portal. When the shit hit the fan they were in the process of drawing up their to-do lists; you can see examples of them here or here. (Portal:Clitorises, anyone?) ‑ Iridescent 14:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Shudder! Thanks, that explains it. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- And to pre-empt any of them popping up claiming I'm misrepresenting them, here's the diff of Certes explicitly stating that their aim was for everything listed at WP:VA3 or higher to have its own portal. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's a diff of my opinion that level 3 portals are
one possible outcome, which does not seem unreasonable
, rather than my aim. I also agreed that the portals redlinked from Iridescent's other example are generally too detailed to merit a portal. I still feel that one could sensibly turn some of the redlinks here and here blue. Yes, there are some narrow topics and overlaps that we can ridicule cheaply, but there are also several decent suggestions which could earn consensus for a portal. Certes (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)- As a member of the Vital articles WikiProject, I am appalled that someone would use it to create an absurd number of portals. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Certes, your tag-team has already created upwards of 4000 portals on
narrow topics and overlaps that we can ridicule cheaply
, unless you're seriously trying to tell me that Portal:Vengaboys, Portal:Zoophilia, Portal:Frigatebirds or Portal:John Pilger aren't a disruptive waste of space; this isn't some straw man we're constructing. Here's your own "random portal" button in case you think I'm cherry-picking examples. ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Certes, your tag-team has already created upwards of 4000 portals on
- As a member of the Vital articles WikiProject, I am appalled that someone would use it to create an absurd number of portals. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's a diff of my opinion that level 3 portals are
- And to pre-empt any of them popping up claiming I'm misrepresenting them, here's the diff of Certes explicitly stating that their aim was for everything listed at WP:VA3 or higher to have its own portal. ‑ Iridescent 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Shudder! Thanks, that explains it. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnbod, they're using a different definition of "important topic" to everyone else; to this particular tag-team, every topic listed at WP:VITAL is an "important topic" and needs a corresponding portal. When the shit hit the fan they were in the process of drawing up their to-do lists; you can see examples of them here or here. (Portal:Clitorises, anyone?) ‑ Iridescent 14:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just out of mild curiosity, what are some of the "several important topics without portals", given we have several thousand very minor topics with them? Of course, there are other ways of creating new portals if they are really needed, which I rather doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the warning. I do not propose to use the script for the sort of mass page creation which might require approval. Certes (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- It you use this script without both an RFC and WP:BAG approval you may well find yourself blocked. Legacypac (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment promoting the one click portal creation script here without noting it needs BAG approval: User:Barbara_(WVS)/formatting_scrapbook#Portal Legacypac (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Either delete outright or make it clear that anyone running the script will be instantly blocked. I can see valid grounds for keeping this purely so people can study the code used; I can see no legitimate grounds for anyone actually to use this script. ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment admission that between 1 and 2 minutes average of effort went into each page [9] Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Depreciate per Iridescent - perhaps wrap the code in a
<!-- HTML comment -->
to disable it, while still allowing the code to be studied. I, for one, would like to take the time at somepoint to figure out exactly how this worked, and would want to test it (not on enwiki) out for myself. If, however, this is deleted, I'd like to request a copy of the code. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC) - Delete End this portal mess. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete so that we don’t have another mass portal creation mess. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and salt to prevent mass portal creation without BAG approval or prior community consensus. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think salting serves any purpose here: If The Transhumanist wishes to defy consensus and recreate this, he can always do so at a different title. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This was used without the required bot approval. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep but blank it, replace with an javascript comment that it has been retired. This code could be useful for someone in the future and we generally give editors a wide berth for userspace experiments. That being said, this script has shown to be disruptive, so should not be readily accessible for others to import and use. Note to most of the 'delete' voters, I'm in no way endorsing that this should be used in any disruptive manner, but it could possibly be incorporated in to something for productive use in the future. — xaosflux Talk 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, not such a great idea to keep code around that shouldn't be used. The "restart portal" code is especially terrible, and has been used to replace working portals with poor quality nonsense. —Kusma (t·c) 19:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and blank per xaosflux. The code may be useful, perhaps to the Quantum Portal task force. If the code is useful to other editors, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have other ways to prevent or remedy any unauthorized use. Leviv ich 22:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
March 11, 2019
Portal:Tanagers
- Portal:Tanagers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary bird family portal. As Legacypac said in his nomination of Portal:Cotingas: "If you know what this family of birds is called, you don't need the portal to introduce you to the topic. If you don't know what the birds are called, you are unlikely to find this portal." CoolSkittle (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete and thanks for quoting me. Another useless portal. Put effort into improving the articles that made Wikipedia into the best place to get knowledge about topics. These automated portals are just useless distractions. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The creator says they do these portals in 3 minutes and then it takes a week to get rid of them. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I had theorized that User:The Transhumanist was creating these portals because creating portals is fun. They questioned my assertion, implying that it is hard work to create portals and that they do it out of a sense of duty or something. Well, well. It appears that creating portals is fun. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - With no insult to the tanagers or the woodpeckers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep -Portal:Tanagers should be kept it is a good portal, and I did some improvements to it.Catfurball (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – portals aren't intended as introductions to a topic, they are intended as navigation aids for a subject's coverage on Wikipedia. They are intended to supplement articles, by allowing users to browse material from the whole subject. Like the Main Page of Wikipedia, they provide a sampling of material from throughout the encyclopedia. They supplement the main article of a subject by having a link provided on that page. If you can find the subject, you can find the portal, and then the portal helps you survey additional information on the topic, contained in other articles. That's the core design principle of portals. The nominator and other deletionists here have not shown how this portal does not meet the portal guidelines, nor have they shown eligibility for deletion according to the deletion policy. — The Transhumanist 19:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sure diffs are available where you call them introductions. Anyway "sample" = "introduction. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Portals calls them introductions and you wrote much of that page. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Does not have the number of "high quality" articles that the Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines requires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I can't speak for WP:BIRDS but as a bird editor we have a enough work to do maintaining bird articles without having to worry about portals almost no one will ever look at. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – While portals include an introduction section, the scope of portals is the whole subject, and their purpose is as a navigation aid to that subject's coverage on Wikipedia. The guideline requires that a portal provides from a pool of 20 articles. This portal supplies a lot more than that. The portal is comprised of automated components, and is therefore self-updating. The maintenance it would require would be if programming errors occurred, which the programmers in the portals department fix as they are reported. See WT:WPPORTD. — The Transhumanist 18:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The taxonomy of the nine-primaried bird families of South America is very fluid, so changes would need to be made to all these portals to remove articles from them as species jump from family to family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Move to a subpage of WP:WikiProject Portals. This auto-portal experiment looks very good, and impressive achievement, along the lines that have been discussed at WT:Portals for years. However, feedback from the community on these auto-portals is needed before launching them into PortalSpace. Given the resistance, WP:Bot policy needs to be followed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep — looks like a good portal to me, and since the process of keeping it up to date is almost entirely automated by extracting content from mainspace, it's not like it would be a big deal to fix it if something broke. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)|😹|✝️|John 15:12|☮️|🍂|T/C 13:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: far too niche to be a useful portal topic. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – The rationale for deletion is ambiguous and subjective (e.g. "unnecessary", opinion about knowing the name of the family of birds, personal opinion about portals relative to topical introductions). Portals are a means to navigate topics, rather than serving as an introduction. It's also a relatively new portal, so why not allow time to see if it's used first, rather than eagerly deleting before its potential for use has time to occur? North America1000 22:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe this will be speedied under X3 anyway. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- All the keep voters here are active members of the Portals Wikiprojectnand bear common responsibility for this portal mess. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I've created some portals, but I didn't create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Portals are not all a "mess" at all. North America1000 18:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The community has frozen portal creation because they are a mess. The community has endorsed WP:X3 because portals are a mess. The community has deleted over 145 portals this year because they are a mess. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The community has not "frozen" all portal creation. The consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Hiatus on mass creation of Portals was deemed by the closer as, "There is overwhelming support here for a hiatus on the creation of portals using semi-automated tools" (bold emphasis mine). Portals can still be manually created. Perhaps you misread the closing statement there? The discussion at WP:X3 is still occurring, but you mistakenly state that it has been endorsed. You are incorrect at this time regarding this matter; it's not a policy at this time. Please stop making up rules that don't exist yet. Thank you. North America1000 16:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The community has frozen portal creation because they are a mess. The community has endorsed WP:X3 because portals are a mess. The community has deleted over 145 portals this year because they are a mess. Legacypac (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, I've created some portals, but I didn't create this one; so what? You seem to like scolding people for contributing to areas of Wikipedia you don't like, such as portals. Portals are not all a "mess" at all. North America1000 18:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- All the keep voters here are active members of the Portals Wikiprojectnand bear common responsibility for this portal mess. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe this will be speedied under X3 anyway. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Hopelessly confused scope. Compare Category:Tanagers and Category:Thraupidae. The tanager article is purportedly about birds in the family Thraupidae, but there are birds that aren't members of that family that are called tanagers, and birds that are members of that family that aren't called tanagers. Different sections of the portal are seeded with different definitions of "tanager".Plantdrew (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, per Plantdrew. Not only are these fine-grained portals useless for readers, this one's scope is so confused as to render it pointless. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Sabine's Sunbird and Planetdrew. This is not a good topic for a portal, and the confusion leads to incorrect information for our readers, and added unnecessary maintenance for our editors. Leviv ich 22:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portal MfD Results
User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist
- User:The Ministry of Truth/Userboxes/Fascist ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Do I need to explain why this is unacceptable? ―Susmuffin Talk 17:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete - the content isn't the most appropriate for wikipedia, but the userbox has ~20 transclusions on user pages, suggestion that the author is not alone --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Censorship is a slippery slope, and Wikipedia isn't censored regardless. And yes, I know, this isn't a "muh freeze peach" argument. This template, while divisive, is no more divisive than other political userboxes, i.e. "Stalinist", an ideology "better" than Nazism but "worse" than Italian Fascism/Falangism in my opinion. It's obviously a template made in good faith, as opposed to vandalism/trolling. Also note that a Nazi userbox is rightfully deletable, but this userbox is obviously not Nazi or in favor of genocide, but in favor of Italian/Classical Fascism, a different ideology. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete with fire - per WP:NOPLATFORMing nazis and WP:UBCR "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive". People who choose to display racist imagery undermines the safety of our community no matter whether they meant to commit genocide or mere trolling. Seriously, all these fascist userboxes need to go. We should not be facilitating and making displaying fashy propaganda easier. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 05:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the only use for such boxes is to help identify users that should be blocked. WP:NONAZIS Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question - User:Susmuffin, User:Legacypac - And how is this userbox different from this editor's multiple other user boxes, such as Stalinist? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Facism is very closely tied to Nazis. Facism [10] and Neo-fascism is defined as supporting racial supremacy and often violent oppression of racial minorities. Posting you are a facist is saying you are a racist who believes in killing/hurting or at least oppressing people who are of a different race. Legacypac (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- A Fascist wants to oppress and kill minorities. Also, the Stalinist userbox should be deleted. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comments - First, User:Legacypac, I am aware that Nazism is German fascism. (Referring to German fascism on the Usenet was sometimes done as a way to avoid being told that one had invoked Godwin's Law.) Second, I was only asking why fascism was worse than, for instance, Stalinism. Wilhelm Reich was crazy, but had the common sense to refer to Stalin as a Red Fascist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - I believe that Stalin and Hitler are still divided by a thousand miles in Hell fighting World War Two, but that is only an eccentric Christian eschatalogical idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Why are we even debating this? This user only made a few edits in 2006 and 2007 all in userspace [11] and people were pushing back on his userbox creations back then according to his talkpage. He even made a Nazi userbox deleted here [12]. This is U5 material. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I assumed that someone would contest the speedy deletion. There are plenty of people here who have fallen victim to the paradox of tolerance. I would also expect a speedy deletion proposal to be rejected by a passing bad faith actor. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per some of these arguments. ——SerialNumber54129 17:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:POLEMIC "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing", which isn't allowed in userspace. Facism is associated in most people's minds with regimes which committed appalling crimes and were responsible for millions of deaths, so identifying as a facist clearly falls under this. There is no right to freedom of speech in userspace, users are only allowed a bit of leeway on topics which do not relate to building the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 19:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, there are userboxes of "Socialist", "Communist", "Liberal", "Conservative". Fascism may be an undesirable political affinity for many, but that is no reason to exclude that from the list (communism is equally horrible). Tisquesusa (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: people openly calling themselves a fascist on their userpage is useful as it rings alarm bells for people viewing the page who've come from a discussion with the person. There needs to be a line drawn when someone is specifically inciting violence or posting hate speech but the threshold needs to be quite clear-cut to prevent our own political biases affecting the outcome. I don't believe this crosses the threshold. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a textbook example of material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense. Titoxd(?!?) 21:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
March 1, 2019
Portal:English language
- Portal:English language ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Cheap broken replacement for a Long standing portal, one of the very first listed at List of Portals right on the first line below Master category Culture linked off the main page. Pretty high profile for a Portal.
However, since the fully automated team got their hands on it, it's busted. All I can see is the first two paragraphs of English language, a little map with no explanation of the colors, and 6 red "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." If I click the red links I get an unhelpful box with "The time allocated for running scripts has expired. No further details are available". Refreshing does not help. Same result on both mobile and desktop.
During February the two biggest portal boosters edited it so it is being "maintained". I've never had an article give me this kind of trouble. This is a waste of Wikipedia space and an awful idea. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
*Keep unless or until there is a decision to abandon portals. This was a working portal until the new portal project got hold of it and broke it, and, if portals have a role in Wikipedia, this one does. The response to their breakage of the portal should be a more sweeping topic-ban than is currently proposed, not only from the creation of new portals but from the touching of existing working portals. This is not a deletion dispute but a conduct issue, grossly negligent breakage, and the conduct issue is already pending at a conduct forum, WP:AN. Until the future of portals is resolved, keep this one, and maybe someone will fix it if the breakers are kept away. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed if we keep portals this is a valid title but in the present state it should deleted or better yet redirected for now to English language where there is some useful content. If and when there is a better plan for portals and editors who will adopt this portal it can be reestablished properly. I assume this is broken for you too User:Robert McClenon?
- User:Legacypac - The portal is broken for me also. (I have noted this at WP:AN in my thread.) It seems to work correctly when I am logged out, but I have not tried editing logged out because that has is deprecated and sometimes does other bad things. They can't be trusted to install and maintain thousands of new portals if they can't avoid breaking existing portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed if we keep portals this is a valid title but in the present state it should deleted or better yet redirected for now to English language where there is some useful content. If and when there is a better plan for portals and editors who will adopt this portal it can be reestablished properly. I assume this is broken for you too User:Robert McClenon?
- Comment can this be returned back to pre-automation? Not without restoring a bunch of pages. The last couple edits before the new crew got involved were in 2015 and the last substantive edits were 2013 when it was created. After 2013 most of the edits to the actual portal were fiddling with cats. Then the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC in April 2018 brought a deletion tag. Taking the page back yields this [13] because they deleted all the old subpages. We don't know if the portal was good or bad but we know no one seems to have been making content changes or improvements (unless via subpages) Legacypac (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like some or all of the old subpages are still there, only they are at their old locations, under "Portal:English" rather than "Portal:English language". Judging by the subpages I found, there wasn't really very much of a working, properly maintained portal there either – for instance, the "selected article" section never had more than a single article to fill it with – not surprisingly, the article on English language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note original portal restored Portal:English..... this is also the portal title that is linked from articles. --Moxy (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wow Moxy compare the new and improved Portal:English language to the old Portal:English. What a contrast! Can we delete the new one now everyone? Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portal:Geography has a bunch of red script areas. Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portal:History also messed up with red script errors. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Retorted Portal:Geography was a former FA portal.--Moxy (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Retorted Portal:History also a former FA portal that was well thought out.--Moxy (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Geography and History portals are working after having been fixed by User:Moxy. Thank you. The breakage of existing portals does not give me confidence in the current portal effort. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Finding 2/8 portals linked from the mainpage busted and even if working, inferior to the handbuilt portals gives me no joy. Ok, this is an MfD of Portal:English language which is a busted automated replacement to Portal:English. Moxy reactivated English which is what is linked from all the pages and lives high up the Portal category tree. The portal under discussion here is junk and duplicates the topic of English Portal. Please Support deletion of it. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Geography and History portals are working after having been fixed by User:Moxy. Thank you. The breakage of existing portals does not give me confidence in the current portal effort. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: The restoration of the old page at Portal:English may be quite a good idea, but technically it was a cut-and-paste restoration and as such broke the page and attribution history. Once this MfD closes, the two page histories should be merged again (be it under the new or the old title). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
We are informed this portal is a fringe case [14] Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete but this is like kicking dead whales down the beach. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Dating from 2006, this is many-authored historical Portal content. Manage by merge and redirect, or archive, or whatever, but there is no case for deletion. MfD is not WP:WP:Portal Management. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually Portals come to MfD. This page is redundant to Portal:English Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portals needing deletion come to MfD. The alleged redundancy between Portal:English language and Portal:English is a matter for a talk page discussion to propose a redirect, merge smerge or no merge. If the talk page discussion doesn't proceed to your liking the escalation route is WP:3O and WP:RfC. A feigned deletion rationale doesn't justify a forced 7 day resolution at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want any outcome but to delete this busted content fork of a contact fork. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- By "busted content fork of a contact fork", I think you refer to the recently created auto-portal located at Portal:English? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC) This matches your comment of 02:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC). I think page swapping during an MfD disrupts the MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portal:English language is the portal being discussed here the new one.....Portal:English.... is the old portal that needs some updating but not up for deletion.--Moxy (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Moxy, are you and I seeing different things? Portal:English language dates from 2006. It was created 10:38, 25 July 2006 by BrentonEccles (talk · contribs), who Legacypac auto-notified using Twinkle. This is very confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- English was moved to English language by the automation crew and then automated. English has been restored as a old line portal during this discussion. They mucked it all up. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes history on the main page was moved but all the sub subpages remained like Portal:English/Selected article ... and is why we were able to restore the portal..... just lucky they were lazy never nominated the subpages for deletion. That said.... when all this is over histories have to be merged.--Moxy (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:The Transhumanist, have you agreed to stay out of Portalspace until you have completed auto-portal testing and got consensus to start making some live? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes history on the main page was moved but all the sub subpages remained like Portal:English/Selected article ... and is why we were able to restore the portal..... just lucky they were lazy never nominated the subpages for deletion. That said.... when all this is over histories have to be merged.--Moxy (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- English was moved to English language by the automation crew and then automated. English has been restored as a old line portal during this discussion. They mucked it all up. Legacypac (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Moxy, are you and I seeing different things? Portal:English language dates from 2006. It was created 10:38, 25 July 2006 by BrentonEccles (talk · contribs), who Legacypac auto-notified using Twinkle. This is very confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want any outcome but to delete this busted content fork of a contact fork. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Portals needing deletion come to MfD. The alleged redundancy between Portal:English language and Portal:English is a matter for a talk page discussion to propose a redirect, merge smerge or no merge. If the talk page discussion doesn't proceed to your liking the escalation route is WP:3O and WP:RfC. A feigned deletion rationale doesn't justify a forced 7 day resolution at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually Portals come to MfD. This page is redundant to Portal:English Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- No opposition to deleting, or moving to subpages of WP:WikiProject Portals, recent mass-created auto-portals. This work is a good idea, but no mass creations without consensus WP:Bot policy style. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and fix if necessary, but there is no need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please clarify you believe we need both Portal:English and fully automated bit created Portal:English language. 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
- Keep and consider merging the two. First of all, the portal is working fine for me, with all sections properly populating. Also not convinced by some of the subjective/ambiguous rationales for deletion provided in the nomination (e.g. "Cheap broken", "a waste", "awful idea") and in the delete !vote above ("this is like kicking dead whales down the beach"), which provides no policy-based rationale to delete whatsoever. The portal is functional as a useful navigational aid. North America1000 22:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Close, no acceptable deleteion rationale, but an attempt to use MfD discussions to develop policy.
- I agree with North America. There is no policy basis for this MfD. This is Policy development that's going on here. Portal creation policy. At a minimum, it should be occurring under a well advertised RfC. MfD must not be used to force policy development. MfD is an obscure backwater, and seven days with little advertising is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and merge with Portal:English. It seems that after a simple technical fix, the page was no longer broken. In some ways, it is an improvement: it is much easier to page through selected articles and images now. However, I don't see the point in having both pages. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Portal:English language, keep Portal:English. Portal:English is clearly far superior to Portal:English language. I don't pretend to understand about page histories and moves and such, so if they need to be merged for that reason, consider me !voting for merge, but the bottom line is that Portal:English should stay and Portal:English language should go. Leviv ich 22:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: I hid an image of the portal that is nothing like the current version and you reverted my edit because it makes an "important point". Could you please explain what the point is? RockMagnetist(talk) 01:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Wikiproject Portal crew destroyed a hand curated portal one level below the ones linked from the mainpage. They claim that these automated portals require almost no maintenance and that one person can handle thousands of them. This image counters that. Also, the Lua errors are not always there so even if you don't see errors, they can well reappear. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- O.k., those are good points. It does seem like hubris replacing some of the best-established portals. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Wikiproject Portal crew destroyed a hand curated portal one level below the ones linked from the mainpage. They claim that these automated portals require almost no maintenance and that one person can handle thousands of them. This image counters that. Also, the Lua errors are not always there so even if you don't see errors, they can well reappear. Legacypac (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
February 27, 2019
Draft:Luca Stricagnoli
- Draft:Luca Stricagnoli ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (2) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:Luca Stricagnoli (3) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete multiple resubmission's does not appear to meet GNG. Need something to ultimately have community to opine for deletion to stop resubmission. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete first declined in Oct 2018 so this has had plenty of time to be worked into something acceptable. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete - Reject should mean stop working on the topic and either drop it or discuss it, but the author was continuing to work on it. Author was also creating multiple copies; it doesn't matter whether the multiple copies were an attempt to game the system or the result of impatience or not knowing how review works. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been working hard to get it up to scratch taking on board everything mentioned as well as chatting on live chat and they have been very helpful,i was originally draft two as someone else had made a page and was vandalising other pages,my draft 3 was only created as i attempted to have the latest one reviewed but didn't have an option, since then i even came up with multiple reasons why this should be accepted and edited it yesterday to show these, i have not got much help from anyone here, the following reasons are why i think the page should be accepted and not deleted, and if it is deleted can someone else make this page as i want to pass on the work i have done?
Reasons why luca should have a page 2 of these points are included in my latest edit 1 Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, Djs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: - Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] -Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. - Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
Luca has been on the cover of Chitarra Acustica in Italy, Akustikgitarre in Germany, Varese Mese in Italy. He was also featured on Guitar Acoustic in Germany and on Luca on College of Fine Arts and Communications (East Carolina University) https://artscomm.ecu.edu/international-guitar-night/ Luca at University of Victoria https://www.uvic.ca/farquhar/events/farquhar-presents/index-012719-IGN.php
2 Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
“What if?” album reached position #49 in Spain on 24 Oct 2018 http://www.itunescharts.net/esp/artists/music/luca-stricagnoli/ http://www.itunescharts.net/esp/artists/music/luca-stricagnoli/albums/what-if/ “Thunderstruck” reached position #50 in the folk chart in France http://applemusiccharts.com/fr/1289-folk/ “Thunderstruck” reached position #20 in the folk chart in the USA http://applemusiccharts.com/us/1289-folk/ “The Last of the Mohicans” reached position #21 in the folk chart in the USA http://applemusiccharts.com/us/1289-folk/
4 Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Luca on La Repubblica (Italian National News) https://www.repubblica.it/spettacoli/musica/2017/11/11/news/luca_stricagnoli-180550669/?refresh_ce Luca appears on the website of countless theaters and philharmonics all over the world.
5 Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). Luca has released two albums with Candyrat Records, the most important fingerstyle acoustic guitar label in the world, responsible for showing to over a hundred million people new techniques of guitar playing. Candyrat includes Andy McKee, Mike Dawes, Preston Reed and many more. https://www.candyrat.com/artists/
6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5]This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.) Luca has not only been part of International Guitar Night in 2017 but in 2019 he is even the host of the event (https://internationalguitarnight.com/ ). Notable players that performed with IGN have been: Martin Taylor (https://hughsroomlive.com/event/international-guitar-night-brian-gore-martin-taylor-guinga-and-solorazaf/), Chelso Machado, (https://artistworks.com/blog/international-guitar-night-comes-napa), Ralph Towner, Andrew York, Pierre Bensusan, Guinga, (https://www.discogs.com/Pierre-Bensusan-Andrew-York-Guinga-Brian-Gore-International-Guitar-Night/release/9474274), Marco Pereira. Alex DeGrassi, Gerardo Nunez (http://www.adamwerner.com/Artists.html , Quique Sinesi (https://dcmetrotheaterarts.com/2014/01/18/international-guitar-night) and many more. For more information about it it´s enough to Google it and hundreds of websites talk about it.
7 Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Deutsche Welle describes Luca as one of Italy´s finest acoustic guitarists. https://www.dw.com/en/guitar-maestro-luca-stricagnoli/av-46314907
NME says: “When it comes to crazy acousic skills, Luca Stricagnoli is one of the absolute best” https://www.nme.com/blogs/every-part-feel-good-inc-one-guitar-2150875
8 Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable.
Luca on London One Radio: http://www.londononeradio.com/4412-2/
Luca on TV Kultura (Russian National TV) http://tvkultura.ru/article/show/article_id/200585/
Luca on LTV (Latvian TV) https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/kultura/muzika/spikeros-muzices-gitaras-virtuozs-luka-strikanjoli.a259112/
Luca on Rai 1 (Italian National TV) https://www.facebook.com/lucastricagnoliguitar/videos/vb.100004073565525/872671286211982/?type=3
Luca on Spiegel http://www.spiegel.de/video/luca-stricagnoli-spielt-auf-einer-dreihals-gitarre-video-1814818.html
Luca at Kaffee oder Tee https://programm.ard.de/?sendung=28231776852046
Luca on Deutsche Welle https://www.dw.com/en/guitar-maestro-luca-stricagnoli/av-46314907 https://www.dw.com/de/youtube-star-mit-gitarre-luca-stricagnoli/av-46314541 https://www.dw.com/es/la-guitarra-de-luca-stricagnoli/av-46318512
Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Your page was rejected so it is harder to resubmit. You are not required to use AfC process. You can move the page yourself to mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as follows: Allow user to remove everything including the rejections and start over with an entirely new draft, and with instructions to discuss any future declines, and with instructions to reviewers not to Reject. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm willing to throw some good faith out there, no objections. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the patience you are showing here, doing this is like learning a new language and i am finding it tough. Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:TNT as recommended above. Charting in iTunes does not contribute to notability, so I would remove reception of that, and focus on notable charts (Billboard, UK Charts) and provide more sources that will meet WP:MUSICBIO AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you AngusWOOF , yes i will delete that chart info and replace it with another point on the above list, on the above advise from Robert should i leave the last draft as i think its up for review or do i make a new draft (draft 4 ) and Can i ask some experienced people here for help? i am not that good at this but a v good music tutor so if someone wanted to help me i could help them with that. if its allowed! Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, are we waiting on the first user Legacypac to get back to us, I had the last review turned down as it was still up for mfd, so just wanting to see should i keep editing in the above reasons for why it may pass wp music or start a new draft or wait to see what happens here, your patients is appreciated, Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)